South-South perspectives, no. 7, 1999; South-South ...unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140255e.pdf · SOUTH-SOUTH PERSPECTIVES ... eration Programme on environmentally sound

SOUTH-SOUTHPERSPECTIVES

No 7, December 1999

A Newsletter of the South-South Co-operation Programmeon Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic

Development in the Humid Tropics

UNITED NATIONSEDUCATIONALSCIENTIFIC ANDCULTURAL ORGANIZATION

MAN AND THEBIOSPHEREPROGRAMME

THIRD WORLDACADEMY OFSCIENCES

ISSN 1020 - 2846 Edited by: UNESCODivision of Ecological SciencesSouth-South Co-operation Programme7 place de Fontenoy75700 Paris (France)Telephone: 33 - (1) 45.68.41.46Telefax: 33 - (1) 45.68.58.04E-mail: m.clusener-godt @unesco.org

THEUNITED NATIONSUNIVERSITY

mailto:@unesco.org

��

� ��

Administrative EditorMiguel CLÜSENER-GODT

UNITED NATIONSEDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFICAND CULTURALORGANIZATION (UNESCO)Division of Ecological Sciences

South-South Co-operationProgramme

1, rue Miollis75732 Paris Cedex 15FRANCETel. : 33 - (1) 45.68.41.46Fax: 33 - (1) 45.68.58.04

Publication EditorClaudia S. KAREZ

UNITED NATIONSEDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFICAND CULTURALORGANIZATION (UNESCO)MONTEVIDEO OFFICE

MAB Programme

Av. Brasil 2697 Piso 411300 MontevideoURUGUAYTel. : 598-2 - 707.20.23Fax : 598-2 - 707.21.40E-mail: [email protected]

Scientific EditorIgnacy SACHS

ECOLE DES HAUTESETUDES EN SCIENCESSOCIALES (EHESS)

Centre de Recherches sur leBrésil Contemporain (CRBC)

54 Bd. Raspail75270 PARIS Cedex 06FRANCETel. : 33 - (1) 49.54.20.85Fax: 33 - (1) 45.48.83.53

The Newsletter South-South Perspectives is published by the South-South Co-op-

eration Programme on environmentally sound socio-economic development in the Humid

Tropics. It aims to maintaining links between the participants in the programme and to

disseminating information related to research on Biosphere Reserves about topics such

as (i) the prevailing conservation and resource use models and, (ii) the means to improve

traditional practices and orientations of applied research in order to increase and made

sustainable the use of biodiversity and supply better life conditions for local populations in

buffer and transition areas.

All correspondence should be addressed to the administrative editor.

Edited by: UNESCODivision of Ecological Sciences Telephone: 33 - (1) 45.68.41.46South-South Cooperation Programme Telefax: 33 - (1) 45.68.58.047, Place de Fontenoy E-mail: [email protected] 700 PARIS (FRANCE)

©

The map on the front page has been produced byusing a commercial software programme. Theboundaries do not imply official endorsement oracceptance by UNESCO or the United Nations.Neither do the ideas and opinions expressed in thenewsletter South-South Perspectives which aresolely engaging their authors.

The Newsletter South-South Perspectives ispublished in English, French, Spanish andChinese.© Permission to reproduce any material of the

Newsletter South-South Perspectives will begiven without any authorization, providedthat full references to the author, title,journal, date, institution, editor and place ofpublication are given.

Layout:Silvia Diez

Published and distributed:in 1999 by UNESCO-Montevideo Editions

The Programme on "South-South Co-operation on Environmentally SoundSocio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics" is on Internet:

http://www.unesco.org:80//mab/activity/s-s/s-home.html

http://www.unesco.org:80//mab/activity/s-s/s-home.html

mailto:[email protected]


��

��

INTRODUCTION

by Peter BRIDGEWATER

Director

Division of Ecological Sciences

Secretary

Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB)

The South-South Co-operation Programme on the Humid Tropics achieved 8 years of existence. Its

action of connecting scientists and managers working in the humid tropics of Latin America, Africa and

Asia has generated an innovative approach of South-South co-operation, which aims to promote the

knowledge for the environmental and socio-economical sustainable uses of natural resources.

During these eight years several important events, including four interregional conferences, training courses,

publications (books, digests, newsletters, working papers), videos and CD-Rooms, field projects and

networks constitute the main Programme outcomes. It is then time to undertake a reflection on where the

South-South Co-operation Programme stands.

The 4th Interregional Conference “South-South Co-operation on Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic

Development in The Humid Tropics: 8 Years of South-South Co-operation” was held at the Institute of

Ecology (Xalapa, Mexico) on May 1999. It provided an opportunity to gather the Programme partners,

scientists and natural resources managers; as well as representatives and researchers from the organis-

ing institutions: UNESCO, UNU, TWAS and the Institute of Ecology. At this occasion, three days of in-

tense work were devoted to the review of achievements and gaps and to the discussion of proposals for

future. After that, a field visit to the coast near Vera Cruz City was carried out to inform participants about

the on-going projects of the Institute of Ecology in this area.

This South-South Co-operation Newsletter’s contains the different points of view and experiences ex-

changed during the Conference held in Xalapa and proposals presented by the participants for the Pro-

gramme follow-up.

��

� ��

��

��

About the Conference

The 4th Interregional Meeting of the South-SouthCo-operation Programme was organised byUNESCO, UNU, TWAS and the Institute ofEcology. It was hosted by the Institute of Ecology,in Xalapa (Mexico), and gathered scientists,biosphere reserve managers from 13 countries(Bolivia, Brazil, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Ghana,India, Mexico, Mozambique, Nigeria, Papua, NewGuinea and Thailand) and representatives ofUNESCO, UNU and TWAS.

The aim of the meeting was to look on where theSouth-South Co-operation Programme after 8years of its existence stands. Three days werededicated to presentations and exchange of thedifferent experiences within the Programme. Thosepresentations took into consideration the back-ground document “Where do we stand?” preparedby Ignacy Sachs, Programme’s scientific advisor.At the end of the meeting field visits were under-taken as for example a trip to a coastal manage-ment project co-ordinated by the Institute ofEcology at La Mancha area.

This South-South Perspective issue includes pa-pers elaborated by each participant which consistof a brief review of their experience in the Pro-gramme and their proposals for future actions.

Proposals

Among the several proposals presented during themeeting, some of those that arose from the dis-cussions, are mentioned below:

SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUNDSOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE HUMID TROPICS:

8 YEARS OF SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION

19-23 May 1999 (Xalapa, Mexico)

1. Proposal for a network - sponsored by TWAS- of research institutes of third world countriesworking on biodiversity - biomass - bio-technologies cluster to creating a modernbiomass-based civilisation for the tropics.

2. Biodiversity, cultural diversity and natural re-sources in Latin America and Asia for promot-ing biodiversity conservation through strength-ening its linkages with cultural diversity.

3. Local participation in the sustainable manage-ment of natural resources in coastal zones ofLatin America. The project will link LatinAmerica experiences obtained in researchinstitutes from Mexico, Cuba and East Atlan-tic coast.

4. A comparative environmental/ecology historyof some countries in Latin America, Asia, Af-rica and Arab States.

5. A first South-South Co-operation Meeting onSemi-arid regions.

6. Training programme for Eco-development viadistance Education.

7. A comparative volume on “20 Biosphere Re-serves in the Humid Tropics”.

8. An evaluation-reflection of the 8 years’ of theSouth-South Co-operation Programme.

��

! ��

Dr. Boakye AMOAKO-ATTASANRID ConsultP. O. Box 16496, K. I. A.ACCRAGhanaFax: 233.21.77.27.53

Prof. Dr. Luis E. ARAGÓNARNI Assessoria de Relações Nacionais eInternacionaisAv Conselheiro Furtado, 2007 – CremaçãoCEP 66.040.100 BELEM - ParaBrazilTel: 55.91.224.2645/241-3530Fax: 55.91.224.2055e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Carlos ARRIAGA JORDÁNOfficial Address:Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Agropecuarias(CICA)Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM)Instituto Literario NO. 100Col. Centro5000 TOLUCA, Estado de MéxicoMexicoTel. 52 729 65552Fax. 52 729 65552 o 52 72 156489(General Coordination for Research and Postgradu-ate Studies of UAEM)e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Isabelle BARROISInstituto de Ecología, A.C.Apartado Postal 6391000 XALAPA, Ver.Mexico

Dr. Eckart BOEGEInstituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia - INAH -VeracruzCalle Cuauhtemoc, 8, antes Jesús te AmpareZona Centro91000 XALAPA, VeracruzMexicoTel: 52.28.12.22.97Fax: 52.28.177.148

List of Participants

Dr. Miguel CLÜSENER-GODTDivision of Ecological SciencesUNESCO1, rue Miollis75732 PARIS Cedex 15FranceTel: 33.1.45.68.41.46Fax: 33.1.45.68.58.04e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Jean DIAMOUANGANADirecteur Project Mayombec/o PNUDB.P. 465BRAZZAVILLECongoFax: 242.83.39.87

M. en C. Angelica ESPINOZA ORTEGAOfficial Address:Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Agropecuarias(CICA)Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM)Instituto Literario NO. 100Col. Centro5000 TOLUCA, Estado de MéxicoMexicoTel. 52 729 65552Fax. 52 729 65552 o 52 72 156489(General Coordination for Research and Postgradu-ate Studies of UAEM)

Dr. Sergio GUEVARA S.Director GeneralInstituto de Ecología, A.C.Apartado Postal 6391000 XALAPA, Ver.MexicoTel.: 5228.421800/9FAX: 5228.186910e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Edwin Akonno GYASIDepartment of Geographyand Resource DevelopmentUniversity of Ghana, LEGONGhanaTel: 233 21 500382Fax: 233 21 500 382e-mail: [email protected]






��

��

Dr. Gonzalo HALFFTERInstituto de Ecología, A.C.Apartado Postal 6391000 XALAPA, Ver.MexicoTel.: 5228.421800/9Fax: 5228.186910e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. HAN NianyongNational Committee of the People’sRepublic of China for MAB52, SanhileBEIJING 100864ChinaFax: 86.1.85.11.095e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Mohamed H. A. HASSANExecutive DirectorThe Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS)P.O.B. 58634100 TRIESTEItalyTel: 39.40.22.40.328/111Fax: 39.40.22.45.59e-mail: [email protected]

Ms. María HERRERA A.President National MAB Committee of CubaOficina de la UNESCO, La HabanaApartado postal 4158LA HABANA 4CubaFax: (53-7) 33.31.44e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Augustine ISICHEIObafemi Awolowo UniversityDepartment of BotanyILE IFENigeriaFax: 234.36.232.975234.36.232.401e-mail: [email protected]

Dra. Cláudia S. KAREZUNESCO Office-MontevideoAv. Brasil 269711300 MONTEVIDEOUruguayTel: (598-2) 707 2023Fax: (598-2) 707 2140e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Vinicius Nobre LAGESUniversidade Federal de AlagoasCoqueiros,400 Lot.Jardim do HortoMACEIO-AlBrasilCEP 57052-310Fax: 00 55.82.214.1610e-mail: [email protected]

Dra. Maria Teresa Rufai MENDESPrograma de apoyo a los distritos y municipios(PADM)Rua Major Serpa-Predio de gobierno provincial,5° AndarBEIRAMozambiqueFax: 00 258 3.329.879

Dra. Carmen MIRANDADirectora EjecutivaEstación Biológica del BeniReserva de la BiosferaAv. 16 de Julio 1732Caja Postal 5829LA PAZBoliviaTel + Fax: 591.2.350.612e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Patricia MORENO-CASASOLAInstituto de Ecología, A.C.Apartado Postal 6391000 XALAPA, Ver.MexicoTel.: 5228.421800/9Fax: 5228.186910e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Eduard MÜLLERUniversidad para la Cooperación InternacionalSan Pedro de Montes de Oca.500 Sur Ferreteria el Mar,Apdo. 504-2050 BELENCosta RicaTel.: (00.506) 283.6464Fax: (00.506) 225.1942e-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Gabino NAVA-BERNALOfficial Address:Centro de Investigacion en Ciencias Agropecuarias(CICA)Universidad Autonoma del Estado de México (UAEM)Instituto Literario No. 100Col. Centro5000 TOLUCA, Estado de México MexicoTel: 52 729 65552Fax: 52 729 65552 or 52 72 156489(General Coordination for Research and Postgradu-ate Studies of UAEM)e-mail: [email protected]












��

" ��

Dr. Luisa PAREInstituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia - INAH -VeracruzCalle Cuauhtemoc, 8, antes Jésus te AmpareZona Centro91000 XALAPAMexicoTel.: 52.28.12.22.97Fax: 52.28.177.148

Dr. Ajay PARIDAM. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation3rd Cross StreetInstitutional AreaTaramaniMADRAS - 600 113IndiaTel:91.44.235.1229Fax:91.44.235.1319e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Enrique PORTILLAInstituto de Ecología, A.C.Apartado Postal 6391000 XALAPA, Ver.Mexico

Dr. Kanok RERKASEMMultiple Cropping CentreAgricultural Systems ProgrammeFaculty of AgricultureChiang Mai UniversityCHIANG MAI 50202ThailandTel: 66 53 221 275Fax: 66 53 210 000e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Ignacy SACHSScientific Coordinator of the South-SouthCooperation ProgrammeCentre de Recherches sur le BrésilContemporainEcole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales54, Boulevard Raspail75270 PARIS Cedex 06FranceFax: 33.1.45.48.83.53e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Shekhar SINGHProject DirectorIndian Institute of Public AdministrationIndraprastha EstateNEW DELHIIndiaTel: 91.11.331.7309Fax: 91.11.331.9954e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Paulo Freire VIEIRAUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaDepartamento de Ciencias SociaisCampus Universitario – TrinidadeC. Postal 476 – CEP 88010-970FLORIANOPOLISBrazilTel: (00.55) 482.331.9253Fax: (00.55) 482.31.9751/482320874e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Andrés VOVIDESInstituto de Ecología, A.C.Apartado Postal 6391000 XALAPA, Ver.Mexico

Mr. John WA-AI SOWEIResearch FellowNational Research InstituteP.O. Box 5854, BorokoPapua New GuineaTel: (675) 326 0300Fax: (675) 326 0213e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Alejandro YAÑEZ-ARANCIBIAInstituto de Ecología, A.C.Apartado Postal 6391000 XALAPA, Ver.Mexico

Prof. ZHAO XianyingNational Committee of the People’sRepublic of China for MAB52, SanhileBEIJING 100864ChinaFax: 86.1.85.11.095e-mail: [email protected]








��

��

The South-South Programme originated from the 1992 Manausmeeting in the aftermath of the Earth Summit. Time has comefor a stock taking operation -experiences, achievements, short-comings and, above all, recommendations for the future.

1. The validity of the starting point: emphasizing bio-geo-graphic regions as the framework for the exchange of ex-periences in designing sustainable livelihoods and devel-opment paths informed by the Agenda 21.

2. The challenges of the rain tropics where biodiversity andhigh primary productivity goes hand in hand with the fra-gility of ecosystems:- the aim: conservation of biodiversity by means of eco-

development, reducing the social debt without incur-ring into ecological debt ;

- for this, exploring biodiversity and cultural diversity,resorting to ethno-sciences and frontier knowledge -blending techne and episteme, learning to managetechnological pluralism, planning for multiple land-usesand applying the negotiated and contractual resource-management approaches;

- in the long run, transforming the tropical environmentinto a permanent comparative advantage for a mod-ern biomass-based civilization.

3. Similar questions arise for other bio-geographic regions.

4. The importance of the comparative approach within thesame bio-geographic region. The ecological variables areso to say put outside the bracket. Cultural and institutionaldiversity account for the differences between the com-pared situations. The ‘mirror-effect’ of the comparativemethod: similitudes and differences are equally important.What matters most is the increased ability to understandone’s own case by looking in the other’s case.

5. The network of biosphere reserves as a laboratory forsustainable resource-use patterns. Given the severity ofecological constraints in the buffer and transition zones,the ‘triple-win’ solutions evolved there, harmonizing thesocial, environmental and economical goals, apply a for-tiori in other areas where environmental constraints areless stringent.

6. The need to pursue simultaneously short-term and long-term objectives, contributing to the immediate improve-ment of the people’s welfare and, at the same time, defin-ing research priorities for the genuine greening of to-

Background Document

Where do we stand?

byIgnacy SACHS

(South-South Programme’s Scientific Advisor)

morrow’s economies. In this context, networking of re-searchers working on the biodiversity-biomass-biotech-nologies cluster.

7. A tentative and incomplete list of questions requiring fur-ther consideration:- How to disseminate the already accumulated know-

how? The role of modern communication techniques.- Overcoming the ‘pilot project’ syndrome.- Putting into practice participatory methods for local

data production, establishment of biodiversity regis-ters, negotiated and contractual management of re-sources and administration of protected areas.

- Strengthening the ‘conservation cultures’ by adaptingthe school curricula and extra mural education.

- Defining the conditions for successful rural develop-ment in rain tropics (land tenures, agroforestry tech-niques for forested areas, provision of education,health services, technical assistance, credit and ac-cess to markets).

- Protecting the interests of the forest people with re-gard to the profit sharing from biodiversity economicuses.

8. The South-South Co-operation Programme.The limited experience of this Programme points oncemore to the enormous potential and importance ofstrengthening the South-South Co-operation. Given themultiplicity of North-South linkages, it is submitted thatUNESCO, UNU, The Third Academy of Sciences and,more generally, the whole UN system should give a muchgreater emphasis on the South-South exchanges througha variety of means:- programmes like the present one (possibly for other

bio-geographical regions) using the network of bio-sphere reserves as a laboratory;

- comparative research projects of two types (parallelresearch in various sites or, else, joint research bybinational teams that visit together the comparedsites);

- exchange of scholars and practitioners;- networking of research centers working on some major

themes of general interest (e.g. the transition fromhydrocarbure to carbohydrate civilization);

- production of audiovisual material for educational pur-poses and media diffusion.

��

�# ��

I am privileged to address you on behalf of the ThirdAca demy of Sciences (TWAS) and to convey the greet-ings and warm wishes of TWAS.

1. TWAS was established in 1983 by a group of inter-nationally renowned scientists from the South. It wasofficially launched by the Secretary General of theUnited Nations in 1985. In 1991, UNESCO assumedthe responsibility of administering TWAS funds andstaff.

2. TWAS represents the best of science in develop-ment countries. Its main mission is to promote sci-entific excellence and capacities in the South forscience-based sustainable development. TheAcademy’s strength is based on the quality and theexcellence of its Members – internationally re-nowned scientists elected on the basis of scientificaccomplishments. At the present TWAS has 516Members from 76 countries.

3. TWAS has four main objectives:

· to recognize, support and promote excellencein scientific research in the South;

· to respond to the needs of young promising sci-entists in the South;

· to promote South-South cooperation in scien-tific research and training;

· to encourage North-South cooperation betweenindividuals and centers of scholarships.

4. Among the activities designed by the Academy tomeet these four objectives, a central role is playedby South-South cooperation which the Academy hasbeen pursuing with vigour and determination eversince the inception of its programmes. This has notbeen any easy task as South-South cooperation is

Opening Address

byMohamed H. A. HASSAN

(Executive Director, Third Academy of Sciences, TWAS)

relatively very weak compared to North-South co-operation.

There are, however, important opportunities which,if seriously seized, can substantially enhance South-South cooperation. I wish to briefly highlight heretwo of these opportunities.

5. The first opportunity is that created by the growth ofscience and technology in a number of “middle tier”countries such as Argentina, Brazil, China, India,Mexico, South Africa and South Korea, and theirwillingness to assist other countries in the south todevelop their capacities. The Third World Networkof Scientific Organizations (TWNSO) in collabora-tion with TWAS and the South Centre has publishedthis year a book containing profiles of 430 institu-tions of excellence in 52 developing countries op-erating in all areas of S&T, including biodiversity andglobal environment. These institutions have ex-pressed their readiness to participate in researchnetworks, training programmes, scientific exchangeand sharing of successful experiences. A large num-ber of these centres are from the seven countries Ijust mentioned and many have achieved a scien-tific standard comparable to institutions in the North.

6. The second opportunity is related to the distribu-tion of the word’s natural resources. The greatestcurrent asset of the South is that is possesses mostof the word’s biodiversity and natural resources andthe traditional and ethical knowledge associated withthese genetic resources. To the good future of poorcountries, the distribution function of these geneticresources in the countries of the world is to a largeextent proportional to the inverse of their materialwealth.

��

��

The poor countries, however, lack scientific andtechnical skills and financial resources to rationallyand sustainably exploit their biodiversity for eco-nomic benefits. South-South cooperation can greatlybenefit these countries to develop their national ca-pacities to protect their genetic resources frombiopiracy and to design bioprospecting policies thatgive maximum benefits to their local communities.

7. The third opportunity is created by modern infor-mation and communication technologies and theirnetworks which have profoundly revolutionised re-search and training methods. The implication ofthese technologies to developing countries is tre-mendous. They offer unprecedented opportunitiesto instantly transfer to the science-poor countriesthe latest scientific and technical information fromany part of the world. Scientists and institutions inthe South can now have the possibility to instantlyreach out to each other, share scientific results andform research teams through this innovative elec-tronic communication system.

8. Regional and intra-regional cooperation in S&Tbased on networking centres of excellence withinthe South to address specific targeted researchproblems has great benefits to the developing coun-tries, many of them share similar social, cultural,economic and ecological conditions. TWNSO, forexample, has recently formed a network of 20 cen-

tres of excellence in dryland biodiversity in 20 de-veloping countries and has designed a project tofacilitate the sharing of successful experiences inconservation and sustainable utilization of geneticresources, and to promote joint research and train-ing programmes.

9. Another excellent example of South-South coopera-tion is offered by this eight-year old programme,“Sustainable Development in the Humid Tropics”which has just been lucidly outlined by my colleagueDr. Miguel Clüsener-Godt. TWAS is very pleasedto be a partner in this programme and will continueto collaborate with UNESCO-MAB and UNU to de-velop it further by, for example, utilising modern in-formation and communication technologies to fa-cilitate the sharing of successful experiences al-ready gained through the programme. In addition,TWAS will be pleased to initiate with its partnerssimilar programmes in other bio-geographical re-gions, such as semi-arid lands, centred on network-ing UNESCO biosphere reserves and institutionsof excellence in these regions.

Finally on behalf of TWAS, I wish to warmly thank outhosts at the Institute of Ecology of Xalapa for their kindhospitality and for the excellent organization of thisFourth Conference on South-South cooperation.

Wishing you a very successful and fruitful meeting.

��

��

Introduction

Two projects in Ghana (that I have been privileged toco-ordinate) which have been supported by UNESCO,and have also played an active role in the South-SouthCo-operation Programme, were the Co-operative Inte-grative Project of the Savanna Ecosystems in Ghana(1993-1996), and the Esukawkaw Forest Reserve andits Anweam Sacred Grove (1997-1998). These haveclearly provided immense information on the depth ofethnobiological knowledge and ways the rural commu-nities have conserved and utilised their rich ecologicaland cultural heritage the past century and even before,relying on their traditional beliefs, taboos and practices.Such display of traditional beliefs and actions havecontributed immensely towards the presence of the fewexisting relict forests, endemic species including fewendangered species, and the abundance of biodiversityin their ecological domain. More important, our pursuedobjectives and interactions with the target communi-ties have clearly demonstrated how most flexible andreceptive these people are to processes of change andmodernisation, if extended to them in a way that couldhence their quality of environmental conservation in-stincts.

Experiences

From our ethnobiological studies on the rural commu-nities, we have become overwhelmed with the vastamount of indigenous knowledge spreading from folkclassifications of species, to uses and significance ofspecies, and more uniquely traditional means of con-servation and management of these resources. Suchindigenous knowledge could benefit and complementmodernity and contribute towards advancement of manyecodevelopmental initiatives, and collaborative man-agement of such protected areas, including the pro-tected forest and biosphere reserves.

Papers presented on the Conference

Sustainable Development of the humid tropics:where do we stand – the African perspective

byBoakye AMOAKO-ATTA

(Director, Sanrid Consult, Ghana)

As we move into the next millennium, my serious pleato the elite scientists, technocrats, philosophers, sci-entific administrators, etc., is that, we have to re-as-sess our views of these local people and temper ourjudgement and understanding of their knowledge andbeliefs, which are attributes, (if not all of them) that couldblend positively into modernity. Much as we have a lotto learn from such rural communities and their tradi-tional lifestyles, so do they also have a lot to learn fromthe scientific communities. There is one thing thatstands between these rural traditional communities andthe scientific communities. This obstacle is the difficultyin fostering collective initiative of actions based on themas partners in developmental initiatives that could makelots of advances in the realisation of the goals of theSeville Strategy, and indeed Agenda 21. We see oneclear distinction of purpose that favours the scientificcommunity, which is their capacity and ability to con-ceptualise issues and mobilise resources for research,developmental actions or environmental managementprocesses. On the other hand, these communitieswhose traditional lifestyles and very existence are al-though inextricably linked within these environmentalframework, often lack the human capital, the capacityto organise and advance theirs actions, resources, ormobilise the much needed support to better their envi-ronmental framework along the expected tools of mo-dernity except their existing traditional lifestyles. Thisindeed remains the wedge between traditional and mo-dernity.

Our research findings from six years of serious con-certed efforts on sacred groves, nature protected for-ests and ecosystems in Ghana and existing traditionallifestyles of these rural communities within the humidtropics, and factors that accentuate or perpetuate thedegradation of tropical forests in Ghana, and indeedmost African countries. South of the Sahara, clearlyaffirm that these traditional approaches to conserva-tion and the collective initiatives of these local people

��

��

are still, undoubtedly, playing critical role in sustainingthe remaining tropical forests at a Cost Competitivelevel. The emphasis here is the cost effectiveness ofthe role of the indigenous people. Needless to recog-nise and re-state the immense efforts by governmentsand the international community towards the protec-tion of government designed forest reserves and/orBiosphere Reserves at extremely high competitive cost.But the elusive question is protection and managementfrom whom?

Implicit from this inference, is the relevance of the Goalsof the Seville Strategy, with particular emphasis on Goal2, subsection 2.1, which states “inter alia”- secure theinvolvement of local people.

It is worthy of note to highlight that within the scope ofthe two projects in Ghana as aforementioned, the Se-ville Strategy Goal 2 which states – “Utilise BR as modelof land management and of approaches to sustainabledevelopment” with particular emphasis on subsection2.1 that states “ to secure the involvement of local peo-ple”, and also Goal 3 which states “Use BR for research,monitoring education, education and training” in par-ticular the subsection 3.1 which states “Improve knowl-edge of the interactions between humans” as the maintrust of our objectives.

However, despite our modest sustained efforts, we areconstrained to offer a word of caution here. Our firstnote of caction is that, our limited activities and experi-ences as relevant to the Seville Strategy, goals 2 and 3parts thereof, analysed and reviewed within the con-text of work by our colleagues within South-South Co-operation Programme, clearly alert us of the complex-ity and depth of different challenges that still confrontus. This should significantly temper our zeal, ap-proaches, and expectations to the extent of having toaccommodate heterogeneity in our approaches, ratherthan to impose homogenising modernity across ourcollaborating pursuits.

Why the need for caution?

Within the South-South Co-operation Programme, wehave to constantly remind ourselves that Seville Strat-egy Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not only generic, and in-depth. But more importantly, they are four goals thatrequire complex, and the most challenging approaches,that often times, seem to confuse even well intentionedinstitutional or programmed objectives and methodol-ogy approaches.

Within the context of each goal, there are complex stepsof activities that move in concert with other interactionsto be pursued. No single participatory entity or evenregional collaborative effort is evolving a clear advan-tage in its pursuit yet. There are apparent differencesin the state of accomplishment and advances evenamong the most advanced participatory groups amongus. Much as the programme has really made remark-able advances, so are the challenges and the difficul-ties emerging that necessitate our getting back to cer-tain basic assumptions, perceptions, and generalisa-

tions at this critical stage if we should, with consistentsuccess, realise the goals of Seville Strategy.

In particular, the most challenging component in ad-dressing Seville Strategy Goal 2, subsection 2. and Goal3, subsection 3.1, impinge on evolving strategic par-ticipatory methodologies that will have both horizontaland vertical adaptability, acceptance, ownership, andsustainability. Especially when we reconcile the criticalrole traditional lifestyles, indigenous knowledge, usesof biodiversity, ownership of natural resources, andevolution of activities compatible with goals of conser-vation through the transfer of appropriate technologiescontinue to play.

Take for example the point “...areas where traditionallifestyles and indigenous uses of biodiversity are prac-tised, and/or where there are critical interactions be-tween people and environment...etc” (i.e. Goal 2, sub-section 2.1, recommendations at the national level).

In Ghana, for example, with over 240 forest reserves(of which only one is designated a BR), sacred grovesconstitute a component of over 60% of these forest re-serves. What is of unique significance is the emergingsimilarity in ethnobiological significance of these groves.Yet, there is an emerging key concern that needs beconsidered within our framework, since it is most pecu-liar to many of the participating South-South Co-opera-tion Programme framework, and especially within theAfrican context.

One key area of concern, which I feel we must all com-mit ourselves to finding a quick solution to, is the per-sistent approach of considering the target domain inour research activities (ethnobiological and land usestudies). We have generated so much data about ourtargets, published so much about their faults, and tra-ditional knowledge and problems. My most immediatequestion is this. What effective and fastest approachhave we evolved to make our targets knowledgeableabout all that we have researched on them? Researchthat will in turn make them capable of addressing theirweakness, opportunities to make them capitalise ontheir strengths, and to participate as equal partners inquickly resolving their past and persisting problems.Such actions will then make them better prepare toparticipate in the emerging new strategies ad challengesas we usher into the next millennium.

Let us more re-visit Goal 2, subsection 2.1, recom-mended at the international level, which states, “pre-pare guidelines for BR management”? How can weexpect an enduring international guidelines as such,and expect collective resonance and response whenthe actual owners of these resources are still entrenchedin a situation where their human capital is not beingsystematically enhanced or improved on?

Let us remind ourselves that in this exploding commu-nication era, we the scientists/researchers etc., are tak-ing full advantage of the information technology andthe benefits of modern Internet communications. Eventhen, have some of us pondered on the fact that, evenwithin the participating South-South Co-operation

��

��

teams, some are becoming completely over-shadoweddue to lack of access to this information highway? Infact we in the South-South may be generating thesefrontier knowledge, but the north may be accessingthem and using them more efficiently and at a fasterpace than the very target groups indeed. If this analy-sis is not disturbing enough, then let us try to imaginethe case where well funded/supported research outputon a target community cannot even be fed back to thesame target for them to correct their own simple mis-takes, shortcomings, or ignorance. We have to remindourselves that this scenario has been the primary causeof the perennial flop in the most Agrarian reforms inAfrica, until the last decade of the century where na-tions are now vigorously involving the long describedneglected subsistence farmers into main stream mod-ern agriculture.

Support has come from numerous avenues like, theCGIAR’s National Agricultural Research systems, theUniversities, Government Agricultural Extension Sys-tems, and the concerted support and experts of FAO,etc. We have to remind ourselves that it has only beenin the last two decades of this century that national andinternational establishments have accepted that the factthat, the fastest engine of agricultural growth in Africais to evolve very fast approaches and strategies. Strat-egies and approaches that will integrate these ruralfarmers into modern agriculture as equal partners. Bydoing so, we are all witnesses to the sudden upsurgein growth to these agricultural sectors, in most of theemerging African economies. My point of digression isto buttress and commend our South-South Co-opera-tion approaches during the first eighth years of this co-operation’s programme, which has pursued a balancedapproach and focused on the traditional lifestyles andknowledge as an integral component from the onset,with modernity. The case of the sacred groves is a glar-ing testimony, and studies from Ghana, India, Mada-gascar, Nigeria and Mexico among others attest to that.

What do we do then?

Within the South-South Co-operation Programme wedo not need such institutionalised structures akin to theAgrarian reforms. In fact our line of pursuit within theframework of the Seville Strategy is right. We owe it asa duty however to evolve quick solutions to expressedconcerns. We have the answers and the strategies butwe have to set it as an objective with relevant supportfor both the short to long term, especially in our nextphase as anticipated alongside our other strategies thatrelate to the other Goals of Seville Strategy.

Accordingly, I can on all of us to put in place a “Strate-gic Plan” that is responsive to such grassroots humancapital needs based on our research accomplishments.The need for part of our limited resources to put intosupporting such grassroots as human capital develop-ment leads to ecodevelopmental, micro and small en-terprise formations, and participatory grassroots natu-ral resource management which are crucial. This calls

for a broader and more-active venture related activitiesbased on what we have gathered from the past eightyears to be based upon developed human capital atthe community level.

We must endeavour to initiate strategic partnershipaimed at better leveraging our resources to attract sup-port from private sector entities at home and abroad.

By carefully reviewing the many working papers, andpublications that have accumulated within the South-South Co-operation Programme, and many proceed-ings reports, one encouraging note of opportunity isclear, that is to transform communities and ecologicalenclaves that were once mired in stagnation into en-gines of growth. And to stand before the internationalcommunity, not as supplicants, but as full participants.In encouraging these trends, the South-South Co-op-eration is gradually ascending into a supportive cata-lytic framework.

The time is ripe for us to efficiently intertwine and linkour pursuit of biodiversity conservation within the con-text of the Biosphere management processes with de-velopmental orientations that empower the people, al-leviate poverty, and promote broad-based sustainabledevelopment.

Our studies and findings have clearly shown abundanceof opportunities that our guided decisions here will im-pact significantly on our countries overall economicperformance along with potential development impactsand results expected from our donors.

We are witnessing an environment where contributionsfrom energetic and committed community basedgroups, organisations and advocacy groups in the de-velopment process is now openly acknowledge andwelcomed by African governments, their citizens andtheir development partners.

The challenge into the next phase and into the nextmillennium the South-South programme faces, whichis consistent with its current mandate, should includethe issue of evolving mechanisms to directly supportgrassroots and communities that have been the focusof research during the current phase. Using participa-tory development methodologies to advance environ-mentally sound sustainable socio-economic develop-ment from the ground up, to enhance the lives of tensof thousands and collectively with these beneficiaries,sustain conserve and enhance the quality of their richnatural environmental resources should be one of ourdriving forces in the turn of this century.

Within these premises in securing the involvement oflocal people under the Seville Strategy Goal 2, sub-section 2.1, we must recognise and address the fol-lowing issues in our emerging future activities:· Self-help and self-reliance are essential ingre-

dients for achieving real sustainability and end-ing dependence.

· Broader citizen participation and empowermentmust be pursued as critical objectives in our fu-ture development activities.

��

��

· Decentralisation of resources and decision mak-ing to the local level, along with greater account-ability and transparency are needed to assurethe most effective use of our precious but lim-ited economic resources.

· Supporting capacity building needs of Africaninstitutions and local groups is a must, if we areto assure real ownership and promote the bestsolutions to priority development changes.

· Within the South-South framework, Africa needsand wants development partners, in a broadercontext of donor support to assure mutually ben-eficial relationship over a longer period. This isalready emerging, within the South-South Co-operation framework, and must not only be sus-tained, but also pursued vigorously into the nextmillennium.

As long as we continue to support research and con-tinue to benefit from research outputs through suchlaudable networking, we have to make it absolutelyimperative to adequately inform, educate and enrichthe human capital which we categorise as our targetdomain.

There must not be any obstacles or lines ofcategorisation drawn on this. We should extend andsustain our efforts at enhancing the development ini-tiative of the target communities within the context ofSeville Strategy Goal 2 and Goal 3, among others.

To deny the target what knowledge and strategies havebeen conceptualised, developed or rationalised on themwill be tantamount to sentencing these people into lifeterm ignorance.

Through carefully programmed training processes, cul-minating into operational activities that have develop-mental and economic advantages to these people, wecan succeed in creating a new level of playing fieldwhich then brings in new research challenges. This,after all, is the basic essence of the process ofcivilisation.

Specific suggestions

How to disseminate the already accumulatedknow-how?

· The immediate consideration is to train the targetdomain for whom the research was generated tobe conversant with their strengths, weaknesses,opportunities and threats.

· Develop a participatory developmental activity thatoperates into income generating ecodevelopmentactivity that is economically feasible and providethe relevant support that addresses the issue ofdependency syndrome.

· The expected output from such pro-active ven-ture will demonstrate to the target groups the ap-parent benefits, sense of participation and own-ership which make future interventions more sus-tainable.

· The need to capture the process of training anddevelopmental activity on video or compact discfor national and international information ex-change and mass diffusion becomes a vital se-quences.

· Community involvement in Biosphere Reserve orforest reserve management is not only cost ef-fective but more sustainable and complimentaryto national/international efforts.

· Our strategies must therefore continue to focuson enhanced human capital development at thegrassroots for such complimentary efforts, whichin effect is relevant to Seville Strategy Goals 2and 3.

Strengthening the conservation culture

· Traditional conservation practices have sustain-able time tested advantages to the local commu-nities.

· These are still the existing local communities’channels of communication in extending their tra-ditional conservation culture and knowledge totheir illiterate rural populace.

· These must be documented, reinforced into mod-ern ecological concepts based on merit, and somereproduced in the form of documentaries (on videoand compact discs).

· Where necessary, tradition or existing conserva-tion culture must be blended with modernisationto make them more readily acceptable, sustain-able.

· Elements of ecotourism must be developed andmanaged collectively where necessary and suit-able.

· The case of Sacred Groves in Ghana, India andelsewhere are classic examples worthy of suchstrengthening and development.

Defining conditions for successful ruraldevelopment in rain tropics

· This must be based on participatory developmen-tal approaches, well grounded on sound feasibil-ity studies.

· The need to evolve income generating activities,small enterprise formations and micro-creditschemes are crucial to these endeavours.

· The mark of endurance and success of these ru-ral development schemes are not so much thelevel of funding since often times these are notfunds driven, but more importantly are needsdriven schemes. Hence, once the feasibilityanalysis complements the viability of the activity,the basic steps for success then depends on tech-nical and financial discipline with improved andsustained cash flow situation for project imple-mentation.

· Processes for effective monitoring, evaluation andaccountability must be in place.

��

�! ��

· It is most essential that technical components ofactivities must be financially decentralised to en-sure and sustain grassroots human capital de-velopment, participation and implementation ofprogrammed activities. For example, componentsof biotechnology, developed technology etc. mustbe extended to communities through training forthem to practice, maintain, sustain and expandthe utilisation base of the biotechnological pro-cesses for cost effectiveness within the BR man-agement processes.

As an illustrated example under this component, out ofthe working paper, No. 26, the Esukawkaw Forest Re-serve and its Anweam Sacred Grove in Ghana, twentytowns, villages and hamlets within the wider spatialcontext of the buffer/transition area of Esukawkaw For-est Reserve of almost fifteen thousand dwellers in theforest enclave have been sensitised already to partici-pate. We have been able to organise into four keyecodevelopmental initiatives that if implemented, sup-ported and sustained could transform an area of al-most 100 square kilometres (@1000 hectares) whichis owned by about forty family heads and dependants.Sixty percent of these land owners also constitute partof the traditional elders/custodians of the EsukawkawForest Reserve and its Anwean Sacred Grove who haveconsented to embark upon the concept of buffer zone/transition area secondary forest ecodevelopmental pro-cess. Feasibility analysis of this ecodevelopmental pro-cess is seen to be viable with over 160% rate of returnson investment and a land equipment ratio of about 1.6.A key aspect of this ecodevelopment process is thecarbohydrate base intervention process with collectivemanagement of non-timber forest products and eco-nomic timber species in the buffer/transition zones.

The community’s initiative is to focus on the use of bio-technology to develop the much-needed planting ma-terials for food crop like, cocoyam and plantain. Thebiotechnology process of producing planting materialsfor cocoyam and plantain have been developed inGhana and can be easily accessed. For the develop-ment of the projected 10000 ha of secondary forests tobe successful will require at least 300,000 plantain suck-ers and over half-a-million cocoyam plantlets within 2-3 years to be managed by the community within thebuffer/transition secondary forest re-growth.

It will be extremely cost prohibitive to have a researchermanaged single nursery to propagate such plantingmaterials. Yet the biotechnology process has reacheda stage where it can easily be indigenised by transfer-ring the process to the local communities. Training fiftyto one hundred youth and committed adults to propa-gate their own planting materials and providing themwith the relevant input support will within two-three yearsmake it possible to reach the set target. Such an initia-tive could provide the framework of networking, ex-change of personnel from other South-South Co-op-eration Programme and extended parallel studies onthe process of integration of target communities in suchexpanded ecodevelopmental activity and buffer/transi-

tion zone management framework.

Protecting the interest of forest people

· The emphasis should be on the development ofhuman capital.

· The orientation should be to adopt training strat-egies to enhance the knowledge base and skillsof these target groups for them to be active equalparticipants.

· In the case of Ghana for instance, most of theselocal communities actually own the land or arecustodians of the stool land.

· Current emphasis of Government of Ghana tointroduce laws that protect the rights of owner-ship of these people is bringing into the fore newchallenges.

· The basic challenge is to organise and integratethese groups into main stream collaborating for-est resource management partners. This chal-lenge has equal relevance to the South-South Co-operation Programme.

· Partnership always complicates access to eco-nomic benefits.

· Rights of access to economic benefits are insepa-rable from rights of access to knowledge and le-gal rights of ownership. These translate into theefficient development of human capital, whichpaves the way for harmonious partnerships.

Mechanisms of supportfrom South-South Programme

· The South-South Co-operation programme inpursuance of its continued existence andendeavours into the next millennium still will findthe Seville strategy most crucial.

· Within the African context, the Seville StrategyGoals 2 and 3 (en masse) are most fundamentalto the epicentre of the approaches to sustainableuse and more participatory conservation ofbiodiversity and Biosphere management pro-cesses in Africa.

· There is thus the apparent need to evolve a moreequitable and sustainable means of support toaddress the elements of Seville Strategy Goal 2and 3, especially the aspect of subsection 2.1 andsubsection 3.1, which relates to grassroots par-ticipation.

· A possible mechanism will be to seek overall fund-ing support for the next phase of South-Southprogramme and devote a proportion to the as-pects that enhance development of human capi-tal for effective integration of local communitiesas pertains to subsection 2.1 and 3.1

· The accomplishments of the documents duringthe first phase of the South-South Co-operationcreates the framework for more expanded activi-ties plus new ones as anticipated form XalapaForum.

��

��

Introduction

The South-South Co-operation Programme on Environ-mentally Sound Socio-economic Development in theHumid Tropics is eight years old. We think it is themoment to formulate, some comments on activitiesexecuted and give suggestions and proposals for fu-ture actions.

Comments on activities executed

We are very pleased to say that the activities on meet-ing, applied of scientists and experts are pertinent andsatisfying.

In the case of Congo, applied research activity has beenexecuted: “reforestation of degraded tropical forest ar-eas in Dimonika Biosphere Reserve”.

After three years (1996-1998) the figure 1 shows theprincipal results.

Pterocarpus soyauxii (Fabaceae), Terminalia superba(Combretaceae), Aucoumea klaineana (Burseraceae)and Tieghemella africana (Sapotaceae) have a growthwhich fluctuates between 40 and 50 cm per year.

The results are considered as preliminary for forestspecies but they are very interesting. The works wouldbe continued by the Littoral Forest Research Centerlocated in Pointe-Noire and which collaborates with for-est department of CIRAD (France).

Suggestions and proposals for future actions

Among the important actions for the future, it seemsuseful to:· Amplify exchanges not only of scientists and ex-

perts, but also of leaders of local populations, inorder to raise their awareness;

· Strengthen applied research projects which could,in short times promote economic activities open toimprove the livelihood of local populations;

Results of activities in Dimonika Biosphere Reserve (Congo)

byJean DIAMOUANGANA

(Director of Study and Research on Biological Diversity Group, Congo)

In the case of Dimonika Biosphere Reserve two en-demic fish species: Tilapia cabrae (Ciclhidae) andClarias camerunensis (Clarridae) have been identified.The South-South Co-operation Programme might bringfinancial assistance to study and research on Biologi-cal Diversity Group which would experiment, under fieldconditions the behaviour of the two fish species in or-der to produce important quantities of young fisheswhich could accelerate the pisciculture in DimonikaBiosphere Reserve.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we must thank the South-South Co-op-eration Programme for its multiform helps brought toCongo.

For future actions, financial assistance is requested forDimonika Biosphere Reserve in order to amplify theexperimental production of the young fish of Tilapiacabrae and Clarias camerunensis. That operation issusceptible to promote the pisciculture and would be aconcrete action in the direction of improvement of thelivelihood of local populations.

Figure 1. Change of high growth for 8 species

��

�" ��

Four years after the creation of the Programme (1992,Manaus), Mozambique had the privilege of participat-ing in the Programme activities, specifically by carryingout the investigation entitled “Biodiversity Conservationin Mozambique and Brazil”. This work has contributedto the exchange of experiences on ecology and envi-ronment with other researchers and specialists. It alsoconstituted an experience of learning through practice,and, above all, a great opportunity to deepen even moreavailable knowledge of both realities.

Among these and other aspects, I would like to pointout the relevance and characteristics of the Programme:the consolidation of research networks, training and thepossibility of having our work published and distributed(which itself represents the recording of our contribu-tion to the development of the Programme).

Furthermore, the carrying out of interdisciplinary re-search that extends the national space, as well as allthe work done, is quite gratifying and is a reference tofurther activities.

I also wanted to highlight the fact that, despite the dis-semination task undertaken by the Programme (distri-bution of existent documentation), particularly in Mo-zambique, there is still a long way before we finallyachieve what some of the countries that participate inthis Programme have: the creation of research net-works, MAB National Committees, etc.

Regarding the case of Mozambique, some institutionshave taken little interest in the need of creating, for in-stance, a group of experts in the field of ecology andsustainable development that be not commercially ori-ented.

Retrospective: lessons learnt after three years of participation in theSouth-South Co-operation Programme

byMaria Teresa Rufai MENDES

(District and Municipalities Support Programme, Mozambique)

I would like to seize this opportunity to put forward someconsiderations:

· The Programme’s particular feature is to acquireknowledge, through the exchange of experi-ences in the execution of interdisciplinary re-search, where the prevalent comparative ap-proach enriches the knowledge on other eco-systems. May these efforts continue to be un-dertaken and all those that have already beenplanned be accomplished.

· During these years the existence of theProgramme appeared quite solid. Its continuitydepends, in great measure, on the way we, ac-tive participants, carry on with our respectivemissions, or with research and information ex-change.

· I also feel that the need for obtaining a moresolid base that enable our participation in (me-dium and long term) training courses urges. Iunderstand that transformations occur in ourecosystems constantly and, in some cases,there is a lack of more deeper and detailed study,and technical capacity to interpret the phenom-ena.

· Finally, I would like to say that this type of eventis essential. This is the only way of identifyingthe dimension and perspective of the evolutionof future activities and of reflecting on the fur-ther challenges jointly.

��

��

This paper attempts to describe some of the effortsmade in India to assess the management effectivenessof protected areas. It describes the methodology used,presents the major national level findings and indicatesthe action taken on these findings and on the conse-quent recommendations.

Introduction

India has a network of 85 national parks and 448 sanc-tuaries, covering 4.2% of its land area [MoEF, 1998].This number has progressively increased over the lasttwenty –five years. In 1975, there were only five na-tional parks and 126 sanctuaries. This increased to 19parks and 210 sanctuaries by 1983 and to 53 and 247respectively by 1985.

Areas having significant biodiversity value are declarednational parks or sanctuaries under the Wild Life (Pro-tection) Act of 1972 (henceforth referred to as WL act),as amended in 1991. Before this act, national parksand sanctuaries were being set up but under variousstate or area specific acts. With the coming of this act,all areas notified under any other act became parks orsanctuaries notified under this act.

Under the WL Act, national parks are given a higherlevel of protection and no human use activity is permit-ted within them: The act specifies that:

“No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any wildlife from a National Park or destroy or damage the habi-tat of any wild animal or deprive any wild animal of itshabitat within such National Park except under and inaccordance with a permit granted by the Chief Wild LifeWarden and no such permit shall be granted unlessthe State Government, being satisfied that such destruc-tion, exploitation or removal of wild life from the Na-

Assessing management effectiveness

of wildlife protected areas in India

byShekhar SINGH

(Faculty of the Indian Institute of Public Administration,New Delhi, India)

tional Park is necessary for the improvement and bet-ter management of wild life therein, authorises the is-sue of such permit.” [Section 35(6) of the Act]

Also, no private land holding or right is allowed within anational park. Sanctuaries are accorded a lesser levelof protection, and grazing and some community or in-dividual rights can be permitted.

Under the WL Act, national parks are fully protectedfrom all human disturbance and, consequently, corre-spond to the revised category Ia (Scientific Reserves)of the IUCN categorisation system for protected areas.

A sanctuary, where grazing and various other rights canbe permitted, correspond to IUCN category V (Habitatand Wildlife Management Area).

Surveying management effectiveness

Over the years, especially with the increase in humanpopulations and the growing thrust on infrastructure de-velopment, the pressures on these protected areas havegrown tremendously. So much so that, in recent years,it has become increasingly difficult to continue to pro-tect these wildlife areas using the laws and procedureslaid down decades earlier. Also, there is a new recog-nition of the value of biodiversity and the need for itsconservation, the need to have at least some repre-sentative ecosystems that are free from human ma-nipulation and degradation.

However, if the old management systems are to bechanged and updated, there is a need to first under-stand what their limitations are and how they can beimproved. This involves studying not only individualprotected areas but also looking at trends and univer-sal problems across states and the whole country.

��

�# ��

The first all India survey: 1984-87

In order to meet this need, the Government of India,through its Department of Environment, commissionedthe Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), NewDelhi, to survey the national parks and sanctuaries inIndia1 with the objectives of:

· Documenting, analysing and making public in-formation on the laws, policies, practices andproblems relevant to the management of pro-tected areas in India.

· Making recommendation aimed at improvingtheir management.

· Documenting and making public information onthe flora, fauna and habitats of these protectedareas.

The Methodology

Based on detailed discussions with experts, a method-ology was developed which would have a good chanceof succeeding, given the various constraints, includingthose of time, and of human and financial resources. Itwas decided to develop a detailed questionnaire to besent out to the directors of each of the protected areas(questionnaire I). This questionnaire had five sections,one each for legal issues, social and human use is-sues, biological and geographical descriptions, Man-agement issues, and for the perceptions of the PA di-rectors. There were over three hundred questions cov-ering almost all the relevant aspects of PA manage-ment. The questionnaire asked not only for basic de-scription and listings, but also required the PA manag-ers to identify problems and prioritise concerns. To tracethe history and trends of events and activities, and todescribe the initiatives taken by the PA managers invarious matters.

A second questionnaire (questionnaire II) was designedfor state governments2 . A briefer questionnaire, it soughtto extract information about the state level financial pro-visions for wildlife management, state level wildlife poli-cies and institutions, and plans for the expansion andstrengthening of the PA network in the states.

Questionnaire III was designed for non-governmentorganisations, community groups and individual ex-perts. It sought to elicit information on their observa-tions and thoughts about the PAs that they worked in orwere familiar with.

Clearly, the two main challenges before the researchteam, at this stage, were to ensure that the question-naires were filled in and returned, and to authenticatethe information that was received. Fortunately, the stategovernments co-operated remarkably well and, with theprodding of the Government of India, a very large pro-portion of the PAs in India sent back completed ques-tionnaires. This was despite the scepticism, expressedby many, that it would be impossible to persuade busyPA managers to complete such a bulky questionnaire.

The state level and NGO questionnaires were also com-pleted and returned though, in the latter, the amount ofinformation forthcoming was disappointing. Clearly,though a large number of NGOs and individuals wereinterested in wildlife management, they did not havemuch hard data.

However, the NGO inputs were useful in identifyingspecific issues that needed further investigation andlists of species found in PAs were forthcoming frommany amateur wildlifers.

Authentication of the data received was the next chal-lenge. Given the amount of data and the large numberof PAs responding, a detailed physical verification wasout of the question. It was, therefore, decided to organ-ise field visits to a large sample of the PAs responding.The total number of PAs, at the start of the study, were293 (51 national parks and 242 sanctuaries). Of these,261 (89%) completed and sent back questionnaire I.Field visits, by teams of two or more researchers, werecompleted for 150 PAs (57%).

Within each PA, certain categories of information wereverified during the field visit. Primarily the focus wason sensitive information, of the sort that the PA manag-ers might hesitate to openly admit to. Illegal activitieswithin the PA, especially when they were by other gov-ernment agencies or at the behest of political or ad-ministrative bosses, were among such. Another prior-ity for verification was information regarding tensionsbetween local communities and the PA authorities. Here,the perceptions of PA authorities often differed fromthose of the affected communities. The field team ob-served, discussed issues with the PA staff, with localvillagers and NGOs, and occasionally with other localofficials. Where necessary, official documents were alsoexamined.

The field teams also filled in critical gaps in the infor-mation, clarified seeming contradictions and ambigui-ties in the data, and collected the documents locallyavailable. Before the visit of a field team, the question-

1 The survey was jointly directed by Mrs Dilnavaz Variavaof the Bombay Natural History Society and the au-thor, from the Indian Institute of Public Administra-tion, New Delhi.

2 India has a federal structure of government and has32 states and union territories. The latter are cen-trally administered territories while the former enjoy agreater amount of autonomy. The Constitution of In-dia lists certain matters as state subjects, exclusivelyto be handled by states, while others are central sub-jects. Some, like environment, are concurrent, whereboth have jurisdiction. National parks and sanctuar-ies are, however, set up and managed by state gov-ernment.

��

��

naire sent back, by the PA they were about to visit, wasanalysed and any obvious questions and gaps werecommunicated to the PA manager in advance. This al-lowed the PA manager to collect the required additionalinformation in time for the team to discuss it during theirvisit.

However, despite this elaborate effort to verify the in-formation collected and received, it was recognised thatmany bits of information remained unverified or evenunverifiable. This fact was stressed in the final reportunder sections in almost each chapter titled “Limita-tions of the Data”.

The output

This survey produced the first national database on themanagement of national parks and sanctuaries in In-dia. Out of this database, various publications ema-nated. The first, soon after the study started, was theDirectory of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India[Variava and Singh, 1985], which contained basic in-formation about most of the PAs in India. It also con-tained state maps indicating the location of PAs. In 1991,a detailed analysis of the management status of na-tional parks was produced [Mehta et al., 1991]. Simul-taneously, Directories of national parks and sanctuar-ies of each state started being prepared, using the ba-sic database [Singh et al., 1990; Pande et al., 1991;Lal et al., 1994]. However, the main report of the find-ings of the study was published in 1989 [Kothari et al.,1989]. Some of the major findings are given below.

Major findings of the first survey

The first survey collected analysed data on many as-pects of PA management. Some of the important onesare listed below:

Legal steps: Only 21 (40%) of the 52 national parksresponding had completed their legal procedures. Sig-nificantly, this meant that only 21 of the 52 parks werelegally national parks.

Only 16 (8%) of the 209 sanctuaries responding hadcompleted their legal procedures3 .

Human population: Information was obtained sepa-rately for human populations residing inside each parkor sanctuary and those living in areas adjacent to it (i.e.within a 10-km. radius). 10 km was specified becausestudies showed that, by and large, direct pressure onthe PA came from people living inside the PA or within10 km of the boundary.

Population within parks and sanctuaries

Of the 32 national parks and 138 sanctuaries respond-ing, 18 (56%) and 100 (72%) respectively reported hu-man populations within their boundaries.

Since the absolute quantum of population inside is nota good indicator of the potential biotic pressure it canput on to the ecosystem, the data base was used towork out population densities. This was worked out bysimple division of the total population with the total areaof each park and sanctuary. Contrast this with the aver-age population density of India, which is about 2.5 perha.

The data obtained revealed the following ranges ofdensity:

Density No. of National Parks (N) /Sanctuaries (S)

(persons per ha.) N S T> 10.00 0 3 35.0 to 10.00 0 3 31.0 to 4.99 0 24 240.5 to 0.99 1 14 150.1 to 0.49 4 35 390.01 to 0.09 11 22 33

Population adjacent to parks and sanctuaries

Of the 23 national parks and 132 sanctuaries respond-ing, 19 (83%) and 115 (87%) respectively, reportedpopulations in their adjacent areas.

An index of population pressures was worked out foreach protected area by dividing the total populationreported from adjacent areas with the total area of thepark or sanctuary. (Note that the index thus worked outwas in relation to the area of each park and sanctuary,and not in relation to the area adjacent).

The ranges of index of population pressures on nationalparks and sanctuaries is presented below:

Pressure No. of N/S(No. of persons per ha.) N S T

> 100.00 0 2 2100.0 to 1000.00 0 3 310.00 to 99.00 2 9 115.00 to 9.90 2 11 131.00 to 4.99 6 38 440.50 to 0.99 1 19 200.10 to 0.49 3 26 290.01 to 0.09 2 6 8

Rights and leases: All rights and other human usesare prohibited within national parks. In sanctuaries cer-tain rights can be allowed, however, these should bewithin the carrying capacity of the area.

3 The number of PAs under each head differs becauseall the PAs who completed the questionnaire did notrespond to every question.

��

��

In 19 (43%) of the 44 national parks and 128 (68%) ofthe 187 sanctuaries responding there existed somerights or leases. This meant that these 19 national parkswere still not being protected according to the legal re-quirements. Also, data collected regarding the comple-tion of legal procedures (and quoted earlier) revealedthat only 16 sanctuaries responding had completed theprescribed procedures. As at that time it was manda-tory to extinguish all rights even in sanctuaries (prior tothe 1991 amendment), it would mean that these 128sanctuaries reporting the existence of rights had notcompleted their legal procedures and were, as such,not being managed as stipulated.

Grazing by livestock: Of the 36 national parks and138 sanctuaries responding, 14 (39%) and 101 (73%)respectively, allowed grazing of livestock within theirboundaries.

Of the 36 national parks and 138 sanctuaries respond-ing, 24 (67%) and 114 (83%) respectively reportedincidence of grazing. In other words, grazing was oc-curring, though it was not authorised, in 10 of the na-tional parks responding (42% of those which had graz-ing) and in 13 (11% of those with grazing) of the sanc-tuaries.

Since different kinds of livestock have different ecologi-cal impacts, the overall livestock figures were brokenup into separate figures for cattle, goats, and sheep,and their densities worked out (number of livestock di-vided by area in ha. of park/sanctuary). The tables be-low present densities of cattle, goats, and sheep graz-ing in parks and sanctuaries, arranged in descendingorder.

The range of densities obtained was as follows:

CattleDensity No. of N/S

(No. of cattle per ha.) N S T> 10.00 0 1 15.0 to 10.00 0 1 11.0 to 4.99 1 10 110.5 to 0.99 0 22 220.1 to 0.49 5 57 620.01 to 0.09 8 32 40

Note that the national density was roughly 0.81 cattleper ha., if one took the 1982 figure of a 260 millionheads of cattle.

GoatsDensity No. of N/S

(No. of goats per ha.) N S T1.0 to 4.99 0 6 60.5 to 0.99 1 7 80.1 to 0.49 1 22 230.01 to 009 6 36 42

Density of goats for India as a whole was roughly 0.30per ha., given the 1982 figure of 95 million goats inIndia.

SheepDensity No. of N/S

(No. of sheep per ha.) N S T5.0 to 10.00 0 1 11.0 to 4.99 1 7 70.5 to 0.99 0 4 40.1 to 0.49 3 24 270.01 to 0.09 6 25 31

The density of sheep in India was roughly 0.15 per ha.,if one took the 1982 figure of 48 million sheep in thecountry.

Extraction of fodder: Of the 51 national parks and 204sanctuaries responding, 7 (14%) and 63 (31%) respec-tively reported permitting extraction of fodder and fromall theses areas fodder was, in fact, being extracted.

Extraction of timber and non-timber forest products:The law prohibits the extraction of timber and other for-est produce from national parks. From sanctuaries, tim-ber and other biomass can only be extracted if its ex-traction is “for the better management of wildlife”. Afterthe 1991 amendment, extraction can also be allowedfrom a sanctuary if it is a right that has been allowed bythe Chief Wildlife Warden.

Timber

Of the 44 national parks and 183 sanctuaries respond-ing, 7(16%) and 78 (43%) respectively reported extrac-tion of timber.

Non-timber forest produce

14 (36%) of the 39 national parks and 104 (56%) of the185 sanctuaries responding reported extraction of non-timber forest produce (NTFP).

Use and occupation by other government depart-ments and agencies: The Wild Life (Protection) Act of1972 specifies that the control of national parks andsanctuaries must vest with the Chief Wildlife Wardenof each state (section 33 for sanctuaries, and section35 (6-8) for national parks).

What this implies is that any activity by a governmentagency or department, in a national park or sanctuary,has to be cleared by the Chief Wildlife Warden.

Despite this, of the 45 national parks responding, 25(56%) reported use or occupation by government de-partments and agencies other than the Wildlife Wing.Similarly, of the 188 sanctuaries responding, 119 (63%)had such uses.

��

��

Thoroughfare: Of the 47 national parks and 204 sanc-tuaries responding, 22 (47%) and 117 (57%) respec-tively, reported the existence of a public thoroughfare.

Illegal occupation and use: Of the 36 national parksand 176 sanctuaries that responded, 3 (8%) and 46(26%) respectively reported incidence of illegal occu-pation or illegal use, or both. “Occupation” in this con-text, means the spatial location of people or buildings,or both, while “use” refers only to activities without in-volving spatial location of people or buildings, as fortourism or other recreational purposes.

Encroachment: Three (7%) of the 44 national parksand 32 (20%) of the 160 sanctuaries responding re-ported encroachment.

Though encroachment is also “illegal occupation”, adistinction is made here between illegal location bygovernment or other outside agencies (occupation) andby local people (encroachment).

Offences: Of the 45 national parks and 172 sanctuar-ies responding, 31 (69%) and 96 (56%) respectivelyreported incidence of one or more types of offences.Incidentally, the absence of recorded offences in a PAdoes not necessarily mean that the PA is either wellmanaged or that the pressures in it are low. It mightvery well mean that violations of the law are not beingrecorded or acted upon.

Clashes: Conflicts over the use and control of naturalresources become law and order problems and oftenresult in clashes and physical confrontations betweenthe local people and the PA authorities. 16 (37%) ofthe 43 national parks and 31 (17%) of the 179 sanctu-aries responding reported the incidence of such con-frontations or clashes.

Management

Management plan: Of the 52 national parks and 208sanctuaries responding, 26 (50%) of the parks and 65(31%) of the sanctuaries reported the existence of man-agement plans. In all the other areas management wascarried out, on an ad hoc basis with an annual per-spective, rather than a five or ten yearly one.

Zoning: 18 (38%) of the 48 national parks and 41 (19%)of the 221 sanctuaries responding, reported the exist-ence of zones.

Relocation of human population: Of the 16 nationalparks and 88 sanctuaries which had human populationinside them and which had responded to this question,5 (31%) of the parks and 4 (5%) of the sanctuaries hadproposed to relocate a part or whole of their populationprior to 1984.

Actual relocation till 1984 had been done in 4 (25%), ofthe national parks and 3 (3%) of the sanctuaries hav-ing human population and responding. This represents80% of the parks and 75% of the sanctuaries whererelocation was proposed. This does not however meanthat relocation have been shifted.

Compensation payable for injury or death of live-stock: 10 (22%) of the 45 national parks and 57 (31%)of the 182 sanctuaries responding have reported thatcompensation is payable for injury or death of livestock,by wild animals, within the PA. Corresponding figuresfor adjacent areas are: 20 (44%) of the 45 national parksand 59 (32%) of the 182 sanctuaries responding. Only9 (20%) of the national parks and 46 (25%) of the sanc-tuaries pay compensation for injury or death both in-side and outside. The rates of compensation vary fromRs. 5000 to Rs. 100 per cow killed or injured and some-what less for buffaloes, goats and sheep.

Compensation for damage to crops: 2 (5%) of the43 national parks and 19 (10%) of the 188 sanctuariesresponding reported that compensation is payable forcrop damage inside the PA, by wild animals. For theadjacent area, the figures were 5 (12%) of 43 nationalparks and 26 (14%) of the 188 sanctuaries respond-ing. Compensation was payable both inside and in ad-jacent areas in only 1 (2%) of 43 national parks and 18(10%) of 188 sanctuaries responding.

Research and monitoring: 16 (42%) of the 38 nationalparks responding and 38 (23%) of the 166 sanctuariesresponding reported that research work had been un-dertaken or was underway.

Monitoring was reported from 9 (20%) of the 46 na-tional parks and only 21 (11%) of the 193 sanctuariesresponding.

Management practices pertaining to forest fires,floods, droughts and water pollution: Forest fires:12 (32%) of the 37 national parks responding and 38(23%) of the 165 sanctuaries responding reported theexistence of fire lines, while 8 (21%) and 22 (13%) re-spectively reported the existence of other fire fightingmeasures. 53% of the parks and 39% of the sanctuar-ies responding reported the incidence of forest fires,which gives some idea of the shortage of proper anti-fire facilities. However, these figures are not strictly com-parable, since some parks and sanctuaries which re-ported the existence of fire lines had had no incidenceof fire.

Floods: Of the two national parks and 14 sanctuariesreporting floods from among the areas responding, one(50%) and five (36%) respectively reported taking anyflood control measures. These measures included crea-tion of embankments, strengthening of bunds (embank-ments), provision of better drainage, and others.

��

��

Droughts: Of the four national parks and 28 sanctuar-ies reported the incidence of drought from among thoseresponding, all 4 national parks and 16 (57%) sanctu-aries had taken some remedial measures. These meas-ures included creation of artificial water points, diggingof wells, and others.

Water pollution: Of the five national park and 20 sanc-tuaries reporting incidence of water pollution fromamong those responding, three (3%) and eight (40%)respectively had taken some remedial measures. Meas-ures ranged from lodging of protest with the relevantauthorities to chemical treatment.

Personnel: The data show that 45 (90%) of the 50 parksand 171 (87%) of the 196 sanctuaries responding havestaff positioned in or for them. The data further showthat of the 45 parks reporting existence of staff, 30 (67%)had at least one staff member trained in wild life. Cor-responding figures for sanctuaries were 61 (36%) outof 171.

Association of NGOs: The involvement of people andpeople’s organisations in wildlife management has beenrecognised as crucial to the protection of wildlife areas.The National Wildlife Action Plan, drawn up by theGovernment of India, repeatedly stresses this point:“The involvement of Non-Government Organisations isof great importance to the total conservation effort ofthe country and there is an urgent need to define therole of such organisations and identify particular waysin which they can be of assistance”. There has alsobeen a task force, set up by the Indian Board of Wild-life, to report on ways and means of eliciting public sup-port for wildlife conservation.

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much evidenceof association of NGOs with parks and sanctuaries. Ofthe 47 national parks and 198 sanctuaries responding,only eight (17%) and 23 (12%) respectively reportedassociation of NGOs.

Equipment: Nation-wide, of the 40 national parks and159 sanctuaries responding, 27 parks (68%) and 79sanctuaries (50%) reported the existence of one or morekinds of equipment.

Management constrains

The findings of the survey brought out many importantconstraints to the effective management of PAs. Theyalso established that, though the expansion of the pro-tected areas network, both in numbers and in the areacovered, had been rapid, growth in management effec-tiveness had no kept pace. Some of the major con-straints to effective management that the survey broughtout are described below.

Cumbersome legal processes: Setting up of protectedareas under the WL Act has proved to be a cumber-some process. Before the 1991 amendment, the pro-

cedure was that for national parks, the government hadto declare its intention to constitute an area into a na-tional park. After this, local people were asked to preferany rights and other claims that they might have in thenotified area. These rights were then to be settled. Onlyafter the rights and claims were settled or the affectedarea excluded from the intended national park, could itbe finally notified.

To set up a sanctuary, the government had only to no-tify an area as a sanctuary and the area legally be-came so from the date of notification. The rights andclaims of the people were settled after the area wasfully notified.

Experience showed that in a large proportion of thenational parks, the final notifications were not done evendecades after the initial intention had been notified. Thiswas partly due to the requirement that the settlementof rights would be done by the collector or the collec-tor’s nominee. In India, the collector is not only a verybusy person who rarely finds time to take up this re-sponsibility but also it is not his/her department that isresponsible for managing a park. Therefore, low prior-ity and problems of inter-departmental co-ordinationresulted in many of the so-called national parks actu-ally having no legal status as national parks.

For sanctuaries also, a similar problem existed for simi-lar reasons. Of course, in the case of a sanctuary, therewas no requirement for a final notification and the areabecame a legal sanctuary from the date of the first no-tification. However, the non-completion of the processesdesigned to identify and settle rights and claims meantthat these rights and claims continued to be exercisedin the sanctuary, making its proper management analmost impossible task.

Even for areas, which were originally reserved forests,the WL Act prescribed that all the procedures to deter-mine and settle rights and other claims were to be car-ried out before it could be made into a national park.This was despite the fact that a procedure, similar tothe one prescribed in the WL Act, would already havebeen carried out to determine and settle rights andclaims, when the area was declared a reserved forest.As no new rights could be acquired in a reserved for-est, the repetition of this lengthy process was a wasteof time and money.

Inadequate management inputs and capacities: Al-most on all fronts, PAs in India were found to be lackingin management capacities. Few had managementplans, even fewer had operationalised these plans;budgets were mostly inadequate, personnel few andmostly untrained, with little research and almost noequipment. In many PAs, the control of the entire areahad not been handed over, as required, to the wildlifedepartment and, in others, forestry operations unsuit-able to wildlife protected areas were still prevalent. Most

��

��

disturbingly, a large number of government departmentscontinued to the use the PAs in ways that were illegaland destructive. The ability of the PA manager or thewildlife department, despite the best of intentions, toprevent this was limited. In fact, the survey found thatthe government itself was the largest violator of the WLAct!

Poor support and involvement of the local commu-nities: Support and involvement of the local communi-ties was almost totally absent in most of the PAs. Infact, in many of them there was evidence of hostilitybetween the PA authorities and the local communities.This was characterised by clashes, often involving vio-lence, between them. The hostility of the local commu-nities was usually because of what they saw as an ille-gitimate curtailment of their access to the PA’s re-sources. The PA managers, on the other hand, sawthemselves as being bound by the law to curtail theaccess of local communities and without the mandateto provide any alternatives to the affected communi-ties, or even compensate them for their loss.

There was also tension because of the depredationscaused by wild animals, often from the PAs, to the cropsand livestock of local communities. In some cases, therewere also records of attacks on human beings. The in-ability of the PA authorities to prevent this and, when ithappened, to give quick and adequate relief and com-pensation, was another source of tension. The fact that,in PAs, most ‘forest working’ stopped, thereby depriv-ing the local people of employment as wage labourers,further exacerbated the tension.

Lack of a regional perspective: The ability of PA man-agers to regulate land use and other activities in areasadjacent to the PA was lacking. This meant that the PAcould not be effectively protected from pressures, es-pecially pollution, emanating from outside the PA bound-ary. This constraint was especially critical where minesor polluting industries were allowed to operate outsidebut adjacent to the PA.

Lack of research and monitoring: Scientific inputsinto PA management were almost non-existent. Veryfew of the PAs had active research programmes andeven fewer had programmes relevant to their manage-ment needs. Most PAs did not even have an authenticlisting of the main faunal and floral species found withintheir boundaries. Biological, institutional and socio-eco-nomic monitoring was almost entirely absent. Apart fromannual or biannual census of some of the larger ani-mals, very little other information was being collectedor analysed on a regular basis.

Follow up

Many of the recommendations made in the study re-port were accepted and adopted by the Government ofIndia. For example, the legal procedures were simpli-

fied and areas, which were already reserved forests orterritorial waters of India, did not have to go throughdetailed process of determining and settling rights [1991amendment of the WL Act]. Currently the act is beingagain revised to make the process of finally notifyingPAs less cumbersome in other ways. The financial al-locations to the wildlife sector were also significantlyenhanced in the coming years. Training of wildlife per-sonnel was stepped up and special efforts were madeto develop management plans for all the PAs.

Based on the findings of this study, the World WideFund for Nature-India (WWF India) filed a case in theSupreme Court of India, requesting the court to directthe Union Government and the respective state gov-ernments to complete the legal procedures required toset up national parks and to rid sanctuaries of unwantedpressures. The Supreme Court, in an interim order, sodirected the concerned governments and gave them atime schedule to complete this process.

But perhaps the most significant development of all wasthe introduction of schemes of ecodevelopment, aimedat minimising the deprivations faced by the local com-munities due to the setting up the PA, and at progres-sively getting the support and involvement of the localcommunities in the management of PAs.

Planning for Ecodevelopment: 1992-1995

The results of the first survey, published in 1989, andother studies and assessments, made it clear that oneof the most difficult challenges facing PA managers wasthe reconciliation of the local community’s demands forbiomass and incomes from the PA with the requirementsof biodiversity conservation. The law, on the one hand,prohibited access to almost all the resources within aPA. On the other hand, these communities had few othersurvival options. Besides, many of the local people liv-ing in and around PAs had been using these resourcesfor years, sometimes for generations, and usually fromwell before the PA was constituted. The sudden restric-tions on their access not only resulted in severe hard-ships but also made them hostile to the PA managers.

In order to tackle this problem, the Government of In-dia decided to launch a programme for introducingecodevelopment around PAs. Ecodevelopment4 , as anapproach, seeks to assess the adverse impacts thatlocal people have on the PA and the PA has on thelives of the people. It then attempts to minimise theseimpacts by helping develop alternative sources ofbiomass and incomes, which are ecologically and so-cially acceptable. It does this through supporting the

4 For a detailed description see, for instance, Singh,Shekhar, Biodiversity Conservation ThroughEcodevelopment: Planning and Implementation Les-sons from India, UNESCO Paris, 1997.

��

�! ��

local communities to develop a village level plan ex-ploring and establishing either alternative sources offuel, fodder and other biomass, or alternatives to suchbiomass. It also seeks to develop income generationopportunities that can divert the dependence of the lo-cal population from the PA. The involvement of the lo-cal communities in the management of the PAs is alsoencouraged and support is given for strengthening PAmanagement, training and research.

The IIPA was commissioned by the Ministry of Environ-ment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India, to doa series of studies to identify the best ecodevelopmentstrategies for selected PAs. Between 1992 and 1995,detailed studies were carried out in eleven PAs, namelyKalakad Mundunthurai Tiger Reserve in the state ofTamil Nad, Great Himalayan National Park in HimachalPradesh, Rajaji National Park in Uttar Pradesh, SimlipalTiger Reserve in Orissa, Gir National Park in Gujarat,Pench Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh, Periyar Ti-ger Reserve in Kearala, Buxa Tiger Reserve in westBengal, Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan,Palamau Tiger Reserve in Bihar and Nagarahole TigerReserve in Karnataka.

Based on these studies, ecodevelopment projects weresanctioned and initiated in nine out of these eleven PAs.The first two listed were included, in 1995, in the WorldBank supported Forestry Research, Education andExtension Project (FREEP). The last seven listed wereincluded in the India Ecodevelopment Project (1997),supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

Prioritising among PAs

The experience of developing detailed plans for theseeleven areas showed that the time and resources re-quired for developing a workable plan were such that itwould be impossible to concurrently plan for all the PAsin India. The need for prioritising among PAs was, there-fore, great.

In 1996, a project was initiated to prioritise, for India,sites, species and strategies for biodiversity conserva-tion. This project, called the Biodiversity ConservationPrioritisation Project (BCPP), was sponsored by theBiodiversity Support Programme (BSP)5 and imple-mented collaboratively by a group of NGOs and indi-viduals, with the administrative support of WWF India6 .

Among the various types of sites selected forprioritisation were national parks and sanctuaries. Theprioritisation of national parks and sanctuaries was donecollaboratively by IIPA and WWF India [Mehta, 1998].

The Methodology

In order to prioritise from among the PAs, it was de-cided to use the IIPA and other available databases,and grade each PA in terms of its biological value, thelevel of pressures or threats it faces and its manage-ment and legal status. The values were ascribed asdescribed below:

1. Biological Value: based on the diversity of foresttypes and subtypes occurring in the Paand rarity,the faunal species occurring in the PA, their ende-micity, rarity and threat status, the PA size, geo-graphical link with other PAs, and on the percent-age of the biogeographic province under protec-tion.

2. Pressures or threats on the PA due to consump-tive human use and other reasons.

3. Management and legal status of the PA

The system of valuation is described in annex 1.

1. In terms of biological value of a PA, each area waseither: -a. a very high value PA, orb. a high value PA

2. In terms of pressures or threats on the PA, eacharea was either:-a. a high pressure PA, orb. a low pressure PA.

3. In terms of legal and management status of a PA,each areas was either:-a. a low legal and management status PA, orb. a high legal and management status PA.

By ascribing the values described above, PAs were clas-sified within each biogeographic province. The PAswhich had very high biological value were obviouslythe first priority. However, among them those that hadhigh levels of pressures were listed higher than thosewith lower levels of pressures. Further, if a very highvalue and high pressure PA also had a low legal andmanagement status, it got the highest priority, as con-servation focus was most needed there. Conversely,the lowest priority was given to those PAs that had highbiological value (as opposed to very high) and low levelof pressures coupled with a legal and management sta-tus.

5 The BSP is located in Washington DC, USA, and is aconsortium of World Wildlife Fund, World ResourcesInstitute and Nature Conservancy. It is supported byUSAID.

6 The project was co-ordinated by a steering group,chaired by the author. Raman Mehta of WWF Indiacarried out the study on protected areas.

��

��

Outputs

By applying this methodology, a list of priorities wasbuild up from among 253 PAs in India7 . The aggregatetotal findings were as below.

Valuation of PAs

Biological Human Management andValue Pressures Legal Status

Very High 162 High 135 High 166High 116 Low 118 Low 87Total 278 Total 253 Total 253Final Priority Ranking (see Table below)

Follow up

The priority list of PAs, developed under the BCPP, isbeing increasingly used to channel additional fundingto the high priority areas. For example, the preliminarylist of forty PAs to be taken up in the GEF funded sec-ond India Ecodevelopment Project, currently under plan-ning, is based on this prioritisation exercise.

The second all India survey: 1998-2001

Over ten years having passed since the last survey(1984-87), it was thought desirable to conduct a freshsurvey and to assess the changes that have occurredin the interim. Accordingly, the MoEF sponsored theIIPA, with financial assistance from the World Bank, toconduct a fresh survey.

The objectives of this second survey are to:

1. Survey the status of wildlife protected areas (PAs)in India, including the legal and administrative sta-

tus, socio-economic pressures, management plan-ning and implementation, staffing, research moni-toring, and tourism.

2. Use a methodology, for the basic survey, that issuch that it allows comparison of data with the ear-lier survey done by the IIPA in 1984-87.

3. Based on this survey:3.1 Update their publication Management of Na-

tional Parks and Sanctuaries in India: A Sta-tus Report [IIPA 1989], and highlight trends,using the 1989 report as the baseline.

3.2 Describe and prioritise PAs in terms of theecodevelopment requirements for each pro-tected area, so as to assist in developing a listof PAs to be selected for the proposed GEFIndia Ecodevelopment Project-II.

3.3 Describe and prioritise PAs in terms of man-agement needs for each PA.

3.4 Assess national laws, policies, schemes andprogrammes relevant to PA management andecodevelopment, and recommend changes ifrequired.

3.5 Develop a database on different aspects of PAsincluding photographic data for use both intraining and in subsequent monitoring.

3.6 Identify legal and other external interventionsthat might be required for the proper conser-vation of specific PAs.

In order to fulfil the prescribed objectives, it is proposedto survey all the national parks and sanctuaries in Indiain terms of their:

· Legal status: how many of the steps prescribed,for setting up a national park or sanctuary, underthe Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972, as amendedin 1991, have been carried out? With whom doesthe control over the PA vest?

Final Priority Ranking

Priority/Category Numbers

1. Very High Biodiversity + High Pressure + Low Legal and Management Status 172. Very High Biodiversity + High Pressure + High Legal and Management Status 543. Very High Biodiversity + Low Pressure + Low Legal and Management Status 194. Very High Biodiversity + Low Pressure + High Legal and Management Status 525. High Biodiversity + High Pressure + Low Legal and Management Status 256. High Biodiversity + High Pressure + High Legal and Management Status 397. High Biodiversity + Low Pressure + Low Legal and Management Status 268. High Biodiversity + Low Pressure + High Legal and Management Status 21

Total 253

7 The 105 PAs of Andaman and Nicobar Islands werenot included in this exercise as it was felt that a sepa-rate prioritisation exercise should be done for them.Of the remaining 428, adequate data were only avail-able for 253. Data on biological aspects were, how-ever, available for 278 PAs.

��

�" ��

· Management status: Are there up-to-date andapproved management plans? Are there appropri-ate budget provisions? What levels and numbersof staff are in position, and how many are trainedin wildlife management? What are the organisa-tional structures and systems? What are the man-agement practices, especially relating to control ofpoaching, regulation of visitors, and prevention andvacation of encroachments? What is the availabil-ity of equipment, literature and reference materi-als? What interpretation, education and extensionfacilities and activities are in evidence? What levelof participation is there of the local people in theprotection and management of the PA? Whatecodevelopment initiatives have taken place?

· Biological profile: What habitat and ecosystemtypes, including forest and biogeographic typesoccur in the PA, what is their location and extent,and what is their status? What species of faunaand flora occur in the PA, what is their distributionand status? What geographical connection, if any,does the PA have through corridors and such like,with other PAs? What are the special biologicalvalues of the PA? How adequate is our PA networkin terms of protection of priority species?

· Geographical profile: What is the location of thePA and how best can it be reached? What is thenature of the terrain and what are the significantphysical features, including the high and low points?What is the climate like? What are the locations ofother human made and natural features?

· Socio-economic profile: How many people livewithin or adjacent (10 kms radius) to the PA? Whatis their socio-economic status and their depend-ence on the natural resources, especially those ofthe PA? What is the nature and legitimacy of theiruse of, and dependence on, the PA, past andpresent? What is the tourism value of the PA andhow many and what sorts of tourists visit it, andwhen? What are the religious and cultural valuesof the PA? What impact does the PA have on thelocal people, especially adverse impacts includingdepredation by wild animals and restrictions on theuse of resources? What alternate source basescan be, or have been, developed for the local peo-ple, especially through an ecodevelopment ap-proach?

· Management issues: What are the major threatsto the habitat and species, including those throughpressures from the local people? What is the inci-dence and nature of illegal activities in the PA?What is the incidence and impact of activities withinthe PA by other government departments? Whatis the cause, intensity and frequency of law andorder problems, including tensions with the localpeople?

The Methodology

As the findings of this survey have to be contrastedwith the findings of the earlier survey, in order to as-sess the changes that have occurred in the interim, thebasic methodology being followed is the same as thatwhich was followed in the earlier survey. This method-ology is described below.

· A questionnaire seeking information on all theseaspects will be sent to the directors or officers-in-charge of each national park and sanctuary. Theywould be requested to complete the questionnaireand return it to IIPA.

· Another questionnaire would be sent to NGOs andindividuals knowledgeable about PAs.

· Meanwhile, a search of secondary literature oneach PA, dealing with any of the listed aspects, willbe undertaken, and the documents compiled.

· Simultaneously, a database would be created ofthe known distribution of prioritised plant and ani-mal species and of biomes, across India and, basedon that, a listing of what species and biomes couldordinarily be expect to occur in which PA.

· Also, a survey of census records and other relateddata would be made and details of the human popu-lation and socio-economic parameters relevant toPAs and their adjacent areas would be compiledfrom these sources.

· Similarly, the boundaries of each PA would bemarked out on a Survey of India topographical sheetof appropriate scale and on forest cover maps ofthe Forest Survey of India. Using these, mapswould be developed depicting the boundaries of,and the forest cover in, each PA. These mapswould be the base maps on which all additionalinformation received from the PAs or from the fieldvisitors will be depicted.

· National and state budgets and plans will also beanalysed to identify the allocations and schemesrelevant to each PA and to its adjacent area.

· The completed questionnaires would be analysedand gaps or questions, if any, would be taken upwith the PA authorities.

· Based on a quick survey of the questionnaires re-ceived and of data already with us, those PAs wouldbe identified that warrant a field visit. These wouldinclude PAs for which personal observation and/ordiscussion with the local level officials and com-munities is considered essential.

· Teams of three or more researchers, who wouldcollectively represent all the different areas of ex-pertise required, would do the field visits. Theseteams would not only visit the PA and meet withthe forest officials but also, where required, meetrevenue and other officials connected with the PA

��

��

and its adjoining areas. The field visitors wouldalso meet with local NGOs and other knowledge-able and concerned individuals, including a sam-ple of the local villagers.

· The information so gathered would be compiled anda profile made of each PA. There would also be acompilation of state level data. These profiles wouldthen be sent back to the PA/state and, wherevernecessary, discussions would be held at the statelevel.

· The final data set would then be analysed and adraft report produced, which would be discussedin one or more workshops, before being finalised.

Expected Outputs

The survey is expected to produce:

· A profile of each PA, along with a description of itsadjacent areas.

· A map of each PA and of its adjacent areas.

· A map of each state and of the country, depictingthe location of the PAs and the ecosystems theycover.

· An analysis of the changes that have taken place,since the last survey, in the biological, geographi-cal, socio-economic and managerial status of eachPA, and of the PA network in each state and na-tionally.

· An analysis of the major management issues ineach PA, and for the PA network in each state andin the country.

· A gap analysis of the coverage that PAs are pro-viding to different species of fauna and flora, espe-cially threatened and endangered species, and tovarious ecosystems.

· A priority listing of PAs in terms of their conserva-tion value and their management needs.

· A photographic profile of the PA network, to assistin training, educational and monitoring.

· An assessment of the existing and possible man-agement strategies at all levels of the PA network

· Recommendations at the policy and implementa-tion levels.

Current status of the survey

The survey started a year back and a detailed ques-tionnaire was developed and sent to all the PA direc-tors. The questionnaire was designed so as to provideinformation that allowed comparison with the earlierdatabase and yet had new and changed questions,based on the experience of the last survey. Field re-search teams have been identified in different parts ofthe country and have been put through a basic orienta-tion programme. Field visits to the prioritised PAs arecurrently underway.

Concurrently, a survey of secondary literature is beingconducted and documentation and the PAs and the PAnetwork is also being compiled. A new feature of thissurvey is the development of a species gap analysis.An assessment is being made to determine how manyof the faunal and floral species, prioritised as a part ofthe BCPP, are found in PAs, in how many, and what istheir status. This would hopefully produce a gap analy-sis which would supplement and update the earlieranalysis done by Rodgers and Panwar (1987).

Conclusions

Over the last fifteen years there have been various at-tempts at surveying and assessing the management ofwildlife protected areas in India. Due to a paucity ofprecedents, the methodology for carrying out such sur-veys had to be developed through trial and error, keep-ing in mind the Indian conditions, especially the gen-eral paucity of scientific data. Fortunately, the findingsand recommendations of the various surveys and stud-ies were taken cognisance of by the government andvarious changes were made in the laws, policies andprogrammes relating to wildlife conservation.

However, the major constraint in fully assessing themanagement effectiveness for individual PAs contin-ues to be the paucity of scientific data. The cost of datacollection across over five hundred PAs is prohibitiveand it is thought, with some justification, that this moneyis better spent in supporting PA management. Thereis, nevertheless, a need to strike a balance betweeninvestments on planning and those on implementation.

The major constraints to increased management effec-tiveness continue to be the paucity of financial and hu-man resources, and a historical inability to involve thelocal communities in the management of PAs. Fortu-nately, there is evidence of a change for the better. In-vestment on wildlife management is increasing, boththrough national budgets and through externally sup-ported projects. Whereas earlier, bilateral and multilat-eral donor agencies often supported forestry projectswith no wildlife or biodiversity conservation component,this had now changed. Most such projects now havefunds specifically committed for wildlife conservation.

Training opportunities in wildlife management have alsoincreased substantially and an increasing number ofsenior forest officers have voluntarily opted for wildlifepostings. However, the ability to attract good and inter-ested field staff, is still a problem.

Most happily, the attitudes of the government, and par-ticularly of PA managers, towards the involvement oflocal communities in PA management have changedfor the better. Apart from changing attitudes, pro-grammes like ecodevelopment have given PA manag-ers the wherewithal and the official legitimacy to startworking with the local people. And it is in this directionthat hope for the future lies.

��

�# ��

ANNEX No. 1FRAMEWORK FOR VALUATION OF PAS

1. Biodiversity Values:a) Occurrence of forest types:

i) Occurrence of a forest sub type = 2 marks for each forest sub type [source: IIPA database]ii) Occurrence of more than one forest type = 5 marksiii) Occurrence of rare forest type/sub type = 5 marks [source: Rodgers and Panwar]

b) Occurrence of an under represented biome apart from a forest type e.g. deserts, wetlands etc. = 5marks [source: Rodgers and Panwar & Forest Survey of India]

c) Occurrence in PA of a species of flora or fauna listed in schedule - I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972, and which does not occur in any other PA = 10 marks [source: IIPA & WII Database & Rodgersand Panwar]

d) Occurrence of a species of flora or fauna listed in schedule - I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,which is found in more than 1 PA but in less than or equal to 5 PAs = 8 marks [source: IIPA & WIIDatabase & Rodgers and Panwar]

e) Occurrence of a species of flora or fauna listed in schedule - I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,which is found in more than 5 PAs and less than or equal to 10 PAs = 5 marks [source: IIPA & WIIDatabase & Rodgers and Panwar]

f) Occurrence of a species of flora or fauna listed in schedule - I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,which is found in more than 10 PAs and less than or equal to 15 PAs = 3 marks [source: IIPA & WIIDatabase & Rodgers and Panwar]

g) Occurrence of a species of flora or fauna listed in schedule - I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. 1972,which do not fall in categories c), d), e) and f) above = 1 mark per species [source: IIPA & WIIDatabase]

h) Value for the size of the PA = Area of the PA (sq. Km.)/100 up to a maximum of 10 marks.i) PA adjoining other PAs or linked through corridors to other PAs = Area of the PA/PAs (sq. Km.)/100 up

to a maximum of 10 marks [Source: Rodgers and Panwar, IIPA Database]j) PA situated within a biogeographic province where total area covered by PAs is less than or equal to

1% = 10 marks [Rodgers and Panwar, List of PAs (MoEF)]k) PA situated within a biogeographic province where total area covered by PAs is greater than 1% and

less than or equal to 2% = 7 marks [Rodgers and Panwar, List of PAs (MoEF)]l) PA situated within a biogeographic province where total area covered by PAs is greater than 2% and

less than or equal to 4% = 4 marks [Rodgers and Panwar, List of PAs (MoEF)]m) PA situated within a biogeographic province where total number of PAs is less than or equal to 5 = 10

marks [Rodgers and Panwar, List of PAs (MoEF)]n) PA situated within a biogeographic province where total number of PAs is greater to 5 and less than

or equal to 10 = 7 marks [Rodgers and Panwar, List of PAs (MoEF)]o) PA situated within a biogeographic province where total number of PAs is greater than 10 and less

than or equal to 15 = 4 marks [Rodgers and Panwar, List of PAs (MoEF)]

2. Legal StatusA. Intended Sanctuary (if notified after the 1991 amendment of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972) = 0.5

marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]B. Intended Sanctuary having a legal status of a Reserve Forest = 1 mark [source: Questionnaire 1A]C. Intended Sanctuary having no rights within = 1.5 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]D. Intended National Park = 2 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]E. Intended National Park having a legal status of a Reserve Forest = 2.5 marks [source: Questionnaire

1A]F. Intended National Park having no rights within = 3 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]G. Sanctuary notified before the 1991 amendment of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, but not fully set

up = 3.5 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]H. Sanctuary not fully set up but having a legal status of a Reserve Forest = 4 marks [source: Question-

naire 1A]I. Sanctuary not fully set up but having no rights within = 4.5 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]J. Sanctuary fully set up = 5 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]K. Sanctuary fully set up and an Intended National Park = 5.5 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]L. Sanctuary fully set up and an Intended National Park as well as having a legal status of a Reserve

Forest = 6 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]

��

��

M. Sanctuary fully set up and an Intended National Park having no rights within = 6.5 marks [source:Questionnaire 1A]

N. Fully notified National Park = 7 marks [source: Questionnaire 1A]

3. Management ParametersO. PAs which have a management plan = 1 mark [source: IIPA database, Questionnaire 1A & WII data-

base]P. PAs which have a separate budget = 1 mark [source: IIPA database, Questionnaire 1A & WII data-

base]Q. PAs which have zoning = 1 mark [source: IIPA database, Questionnaire 1A & WII database]

4. Biotic Pressures [Source: IIPA database and Questionnaire 1A]: Please note that an absence of any of thepressures will result in the PA getting no marks for those pressures which do not exist. In the case of a PAhaving no pressures at all, its negative value will be equal to zero.a) Dam for an irrigation or hydel power project:

i) Area of the reservoir less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area of the reservoir more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area of the reservoir more than 10% of the PA = 3 marks

b) Tourismi) Area occupied by the tourism project less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area occupied by the tourism project more than 5% and equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area occupied by the tourism project more than 10% of the PA = 3 marksiv) Density of tourists visiting the PA annually below or equal to the 33 percentile class density of

tourists visiting all other PAs annually = 1 markv) Density of tourists visiting the PA annually more than 33 or equal to 66 percentile class

density of tourists visiting all other PAs annually = 2 marksvi) Density of tourists visiting the PA annually more than 66 percentile class density of tourists

visiting all other PAs annually = 3 marksc) Mining/Quarrying

i) Area occupied by the mining/quarrying project less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area occupied by the mining/quarrying project more than 5% and equal to 10% of the PA =

2 marksiii) Area occupied by the mining/quarrying project more than 10% of the PA = 3 marks

d) Plantationsi) Area of the PA used for plantations less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area of the PA used for plantations more than 5% and equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area of the PA used for plantations more than 10% of the PA = 3 marks

e) Electrical cables/transmission lines:i) Electrical cables transmission lines within the PA = 2 marks

f) PWD roads/Highways:i) PWD Roads/Highways within the PA = 2 marks

g) Habitation:i) Area of habitation less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area of habitation more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area of habitation greater than 10% of the PA = 3marksiv) Density of population less than or equal to 33% of the density of population of the district(s)

in which the PA is located = 1 markv) Density of population more than 33% and less than or equal to 66% of the density of popu-

lation of the district(s) in which the PA is located = 2 marksvi) Density of population more than 66% of the density of population of the district(s) in which

the PA is located = 3 marksh) Cultivation

i) Area of cultivation less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area of cultivation more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area of cultivation greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marks

i) Pilgrimagei) Are of pilgrimage spot(s) less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area of pilgrimage spot(s) more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area of pilgrimage spot(s) greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marks

��

��

iv) Density of pilgrims visiting the PA annually less than or equal to the 33 percentile class ofpilgrims visiting all other PAs annually = 1 mark

v) Density of pilgrims visiting the PA annually more than 33 percentile or equal to 66 percentileclass of pilgrims visiting all other PAs annually = 2 marks

vi) Density of pilgrims visiting the PA annually more than 66 percentile class of pilgrims visitingall other PAs annually = 3 marks

j) Fishingi) Area impacted by fishing less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area impacted by fishing more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area impacted by fishing greater than 10% of the PA = 3marksiv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fish less than or equal to the 33 percentile class of the

per sq. km extraction of fish from PAs = 1 markv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fish more than 33 or equal to 66 percentile class of the

per sq. km extraction of fish from PAs = 2 marksvi) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fish more than 66 percentile class of the per sq. km

extraction of fish from PAs = 3 marksk) Timber Extraction

i) Area impacted by timber extraction less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area impacted by timber extraction more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area impacted by timber extraction greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marksiv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of timber less than or equal to 33 percentile class of the

per sq. km extraction of timber from PAs = 1 markv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of timber more than 33 percentile or equal to 66 percen-

tile class of the per sq. km extraction of timber from PAs = 2 marksvi) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of timber more than 66 percentile class of the per sq. km

extraction of timber from PAs = 3 marksl) Fuelwood Extraction

i) Area impacted by fuelwood extraction less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1markii) Area impacted by fuelwood extraction more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area impacted by fuelwood extraction greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marksiv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fuelwood less than or equal to 33 percentile class of

the per sq. km extraction of fuelwood from PAs = 1 markv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fuelwood more than 33 percentile or equal to 66 per-

centile class of the per sq. km extraction of fuel wood from PAs = 2 marksvi) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fuelwood more than 66 percentile class of the per sq.

km extraction of fuelwood from PAs = 3 marksm) NWFP Extraction:

i) Area impacted by NWFP extraction less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area impacted by NWFP extraction more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area impacted by NWFP extraction greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marksiv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of NWFP less than or equal to 33 percentile class of the

per sq. km extraction of NWFP from PAs = 1 markv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of NWFP more than 33 percentile or equal to 66 percen-

tile class of the per sq. km extraction of NWFP from PAs = 2 marksvi) Quantum of extraction per sq. Km of NWFP more than 66 percentile class of the per sq. km

extraction of NWFP from PAS = 3 marksn) Fodder extraction

i) Area impacted by fodder extraction less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area impacted by fodder extraction more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area impacted by fodder extraction greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marksiv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fodder less than or equal to 33 percentile class of the

per sq. km extraction of fodder from PAs = 1 markv) Quantum of extraction per sq. km of fodder more than 33 percentile or equal to 66 percen-

tile class of the per sq. km extraction of fodder from PAs = 2 marksvi) Quantum of extraction of fodder more than 66 percentile class of the per sq. km extraction

of fodder from PAs = 3 markso) Grazing:

i) Area impacted by grazing less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area impacted by grazing more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marks

��

��

iii) Area impacted by grazing greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marksiv) Density of cattle units grazing in the PA less than the density of cattle units in the district in

which the PA is located = 1 markv) Density of cattle units grazing in the PA equal to the density of cattle units in the district in

which the PA is located = 2 marksvi) Density of cattle units grazing in the PA less more than the density of cattle units in the dis-

trict in which the PA is located = 3 marksp) Forest fires:

i) Area impacted by forest fires less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area impacted by forest fires more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area impacted by forest fires greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marks

q) Weed infestationi) Area impacted by weed infestation less than or equal to 5% of the PA = 1 markii) Area impacted by weed infestation more than 5% or equal to 10% of the PA = 2 marksiii) Area impacted by weed infestation greater than 10% of the PA = 3 marks

r) Poaching:i) Existence of poaching of animals = 2 marksii) Existence of illegal cutting of trees = 2 marksiii) Poaching or illegal cutting of trees being done by organised gangs of poachers = 3 marks

Questionnaire 1 or 1A = questionnaire circulated as a part of the IIPA study.

References

Kothari, A.; Pande, P.; Singh, S.; Variava, D. 1989. Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India, AStatus Report. Environmental Studies Division, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Lal, R.; Kothari, A.; Pande, P.; Singh, S. 1994. Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries in Karnataka: Manage-ment Status and Profiles, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Mehta, R. 1998. Prioritisation of National Parks and Sanctuaries in the Indian Mainland. A collaborative study of theIndian institute of public administration and the world wide fund for nature – India for the biodiversity conserva-tion prioritisation project, Mimeo.

Mehta, R.; Singh, S.; Kothari, A. 1991. India’s National Parks, A Management Profile. Environment Studies Division,Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

MoEF, Ministry of Environment and Forests- Government of India. 1998. Implementation of Article 6 of the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity on India.

Pande, P.; Kothari, A.; Singh, S. 1991. Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries in Andaman and Nicobar Is-lands: Management Status and Profiles, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Rodgers, W. A.; Panwar, H. S. 1988. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India, March 1988, WildlifeInstitute of India, Dehradun, India.

Singh, S.; Kothari, A.; Pande, P. 1990. Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries in Himachal Pradesh: Manage-ment Status and Profiles. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Variava, D.; Singh, S. 1985. Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India. Indian Institute of Public Adminis-tration, New Delhi.

��

��

Since the Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve inYunnan Province, China, as a case study, has beenincluding in the South-South Co-operation Pro-gramme, through a series activities within thisframework, I would like to summarize some per-sonal points of view as the follows:

Achievements

The South-South Co-operation Programme hasfound an appropriate staring point since its the firstmeeting was held in Manus, Brazil, in 992, whichwas the first follow-up to the United Nations Con-ference on Environment and Development(UNCED). When the programme is coming intoits the eighth year, we look back it has achievedsome successful and fruitful results such as:through the organizers made efforts, separatedevelopment countries in the humid tropics havebeen linked a network as a research base for help-ing to identity means to strengthen institutionallylocal capacities, research, training, seminars andmanagement of sustainable use natural resourcesas well as exchanging scientists, experiences andresearch results. It has also disseminated eco-development and knowledge of comparative re-search by publications and network databases. Allthese activities have been improving their man-agement of natural resources. These efforts mostlyimplementing in the biosphere reserves, which isactually strengthening the MAB Programme and,the distance of countries has been shortened.

Prospects of the South-South Co-operation ProgrammeCase study in China

byZHAO Xianying

(Chinese National Committee for MAB, Chinese Academy of Science)

Challenges

Owing to current trends in population growth anddistribution, increasing demands for energy andnatural resources in both quantity and quality, evenif some nature reserves or protected areas are alsodifficult to withstand degeneration at the hands ofman and becoming isolated “islands ecosystems”,it is obvious situation specially in the developmentcountries with a very large population, an exam-ple in China, we are faced with following chal-lenges:

· How to coordinate the traditional in conflict withthe modernization?

· How to harmonize relationship between thebiodiversity conservation and social economicdevelopment?

· The production of ecosystems can not be ableto satisfy the economic development needs;

· How can we reconcile conservation of biologi-cal diversity and biological resources with theirsustainable use?

Prospects

However, above the challenges, have shown uswhat future does the world as we move towardsthe 21st century? All these paint a sobering pictureof environment and development prospects in thenear future. The South-South Co-operationProgramme has many advantages, it therefore, will

��

��

be with brilliant prospects for environmentallysound socio-economic development, such as:

· An effective biosphere reserve involves natu-ral and social scientists; conservation and de-velopment groups; management authoritiesand local communities – all working togetheron the environment and development issues.The South-South Co-operation Programme’smajor goal just focuses on improvement ofmanagement know-how for biosphere re-serves. Based on their achievements, whichwill be able to foster the application of the bio-sphere reserve concept to the maximum;

· The South-South Co-operation Programme isaiming at putting into action the recommen-dations of Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de

Janeiro, particularly the Convention of Biologi-cal Diversity;

· The experience of the South-South Co-opera-tion Programme can be disseminated to theother bio-geographic regions such as temper-ate region. North-South linkages therefore, willbe possible realized, while the bilateral ormultilateral cooperation will be able to prac-tice within the framework;

· Applied research projects, such as eco-tech-niques, agroforestry, ecological farming, etc.Can be used in the buffer zone and the transi-tion areas in the biosphere reserve or the pro-tected areas to transform slash-and-burn cul-tivation for improving the local livelihoods.

��

�! ��

This is the last meeting of the South-South Co-operation Programme. I had the privilege of ac-companying its development since its formulationin Manaus 1992, just after the UNCED/92. A monthfrom now the UNESCO/ICSU World Conferenceon Science will take place in Budapest, Hungary.One of the issues to be addressed by that Confer-ence is how to respond to the most critical chal-lenges faced by developing countries to developscience within their own borders. The humid trop-ics cover significant parts of these countries andthey represent tremendous opportunities for sci-ence, but still most scientific developments areproduced outside those countries. The South-South Co-operation Programme contributed toovercome those difficulties in the following ways,among others.

1. The programme stimulated to switch scien-tific research towards developing countriesown interests. Since developed countriesdominate scientific research, the knowledgeproduced in developing countries is in generalrelevant principally for developed countries.Research interested for developing countries,such as the use of solar energy, wind energy,biomass, and many other relative advantages

Some contributions of the South-South Co-operation Program for thedevelopment of science in humid tropics

byLuis E. ARAGÓN1

(Federal University of Pará, Brazil and General Secretary of theAssociation of Amazonian Universities, UNAMAZ)

of developing countries in relation to developedones is underprivileged. As a result of theSouth-South Co-operation Programme agroup of some 500 scientists were identifiedin countries of the humid tropics that are con-cerned with the development of these areas.The Programme was concentrated on thestudy of the Biosphere Reserves as a modelfor sustainable development, an idea thatevolved from multiple experiences around thehumid tropics.

2. The Programme served as a mechanism tomitigate brain-drain. How to retain highlytrained professionals is for many developingcountries on of the most significant limitationsto develop science in their own countries. Bypromoting exchange of information, interna-tional scientific meetings, comparative stud-ies and networking which involved scientistsmainly from the South, the Programme allowedmany individuals to know experiences beingcarried out in other countries which were rel-evant for their work, so they could enhancetheir own work.

3. The Programme is a unique experience, whichreoriented international co-operation. Tradi-tionally, South-South Co-operation has beenvery weak. The South-South Co-operationProgramme identified important scientific in-stitutes and universities in developing coun-tries capable of transferring knowledge to othercountries; why not to use them? Developing

1 This paper was based on the document elaboratedby Luis E. Aragón (Brazil), Andy Ahmed Zaelany (In-donesia) and Lubiao Zhang (China), to be presentedat the meeting of the LEAD International Programmeduring the events organized by the World Conferenceof Sciences, Budapest Hungary).

��

��

countries need both, co-operation with devel-oped and with developing countries, but co-operation among Southern countries reducesasymmetries so often present in North-Southco-operation, facilitating in this way to devel-oping countries find their own ways to reachdevelopment.

4. One of the most important principles thatguided the Programme was that sustainabledevelopment will never be reached withoutparticipation of the community, and thereforepopular knowledge should be incorporated inscientific research. Science is another expres-sion of culture; other cultural expressions andvalues exist though which many people be-have and for which science does not havemuch meaning. But many scientists’ discov-eries are based in that popular knowledgeaccumulated by generations, especially in ar-eas such as pharmacy, resource manage-ment, medicine, biology and agronomy. Thisknowledge should somehow be linked to sci-ence for mutual benefit. Several successfulexamples concerning ecotechnology, partici-patory processes in resource planing,biodiversity conservation and agroecologywere studied through the programme aroundthe humid tropics.

5. The Programme strengthened interdisciplinarywork. Interdisciplinary is the integration of frag-mented knowledge possessed by specialists

from different fields, applied to the study andsolution of specific problems. All the areas in-vestigated and studies conducted by theProgramme were in one way or another inter-disciplinary.

6. Finally, the Programme set the basis for es-tablishing networks. Networks facilitate ex-change of scientits and professors, mobility ofstudents, joint research projects, and rapidcommunication. Those elements were presentin the South-South Co-operation Programme.

In a few words, I can conclude that the South-SouthCo-operation Programme, through its multiple ac-tivities and people involved, created awarenessabout the need for a change in the present trendsof science. Changes that the coming World Con-ference on Science should address and stimulate.The impressive advancements achieved by sci-entific development will have no meaning if sci-ence is unable to contribute to reverse the presenttendencies towards destruction, concentration ofwealth, injustice, poverty and inequality. To revertthose tendencies, scientific priorities must be re-dimensioned in the basis of ethics, social benefit,environmental protection, sustainable develop-ment, equity and culture of peace. The South-South Co-operation Programme was an effort inthat direction.

��

�" ��

The dominant way of the new planetwide social,economical and political relationships, the marketeconomy, brings along many conflictive processesregarding society and nature. As well as nature,ecological productivity and its cycle of repositionsis excluded from economical calculations and itsvalue is recognised in neo-classical economy withthe elegant concept of externalities. The growth ofpoverty, the accelerated degradation and loss ofbiodiversity and the loss of the photosynthetic wayof transforming energy, the global climatic change,the increasing desertification, the competence forhabitat among the different living beings of theplanet and the imminent scarcity of drinking water,puts in question the notion of progress. The pow-erful instrument of free market has its limits; mainlyit is uncertain that it can resolve either the finan-cial, social or ecological debt of the Third World.Economical rationality has generated an increas-ing destructive appropriation of the planet ecologi-cal productivity. The simple statement growth isnot synonymous to development from the sev-enties, is not understood by the current economistor the heads of the economical decisions. But thisstatement should be the centre of the discussionof what is sustainable development.

Nowadays, in the process of globalisation or of theworld economy on a planetary scale, net appro-priation by human economy of net primary produc-tion from sea and land (NPP) through photosyn-thesis corresponds to a 25% of the whole produc-tion. If we include terrestrial use we arrive at a 40%.

“Taking the 25% figures for the entire world it is

Lessons learnt in theSouth-South Co-operation Programme on EnvironmentallySound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics

byEckart BOEGE

(Institute of Anthropology and History, Mexico)

apparent that two more doublings of the humanscale will give 100%. Since this would mean zeroenergy left for all non human and non domesti-cated species, and since humans cannot survivewithout the services of ecosystems, which aremade up for other species, it is clear that two moredoublings of the human scale is an ecological im-possibility...”1

Like the population growth discussion thisglobalisation version of the world economy has itsregional nuances. Within this framework, the hu-mid tropic is not used at all due to its enormouspotential for optimising energy through biomassor photosynthesis. On the contrary, the Northschemes are imposed on the South, and what isleft, are enormous deforestation rates. From thepoint of view of the efficient use of the energy, thehumid tropical forests represent an optimal andcomplex output. But the market economy has notbeen able to integrate and value this basic fea-ture. The industrial cycle of commodity productionhas another logic and timing than nature. Themarket needs to tend to subordinate the naturalreproductive cycles to the economic ones. This isthe reason why the industrialised agriculture pre-fers the huge plantations with a great amount ofexternal input or fossil energy, than understanding

1 Daly Herman. Sustainable Development: From Conceptand Theory Towards Operational Principles

��

��

the complex and biodiverse rainforest. Related withthis item we can include large scale deforestationfor cattle rising, or sugarcane or soybean crops orwhatever. This is one of the reasons for the de-struction of complete tropical landscapes.

Another reason for the depletion is that importantsegments of natural tropical forest stands in iso-lated regions namely in a social, political and eco-nomic frontier. Patronazgo, violence in colonisa-tion areas with cultural ruptures, non-existent serv-ices, low capacity of negotiation of the direct pro-ducers, long distance markets are the commonfeatures of these areas. This necessarily disruptsthe social relationships, and stimulates the openaccess to resources. The problems of lack of eq-uity and unequal distribution were generated bythis style of development, much before ecologicallimits were exceeded. It is the intrinsic rationalityof economic growth that destroys the ecologicaland cultural conditions of sustainability. There is afundamental doubt if the powerful market instru-ment under the big multinational enterprises couldresolve the irreversible entropic use of nature.

To the financial and social debt must be added anecological debt that, in comparison to the first onesis incommensurable. This rises the issue of devel-oping a new paradigm of economy, able to inter-nalise the ecological conditions and sustainabledevelopment. And this has to do with equity, au-tonomy, and endogenic process development.

It could be seen as theoretical abuse to link thelessons learnt in the South-South Programme tothe essence of the international relationships gen-erated by the world market and the newglobalisation process and the unbalanced growth.But we have to embed the whole Biosphere dis-cussion into a new approach to development.

The limitation of neo-classical economic instru-ments for conservation and development shouldbe resolved by state politics and financed by thenational and international community. TheUNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve instrument forconservation and development should be restudiedat the light of its evolution in different countries.

But the main question would be how the protectedareas systems could be an instrument to preservethe biodiversity at all, and not only in some biologi-cal islands or natural zoos in the middle of deple-

tion and desertification. In the different South-Southmeetings we reached to the conclusion that thereserves should be a pretext to launchecodevelopment projects with the communities inthe surrounding areas, and with this laboratorybegin an enormous effort for what Ignacy Sachscalled biomass tropical civilisation. The reservescould play a catalytic role for a new developmentstyle in an unbalanced growth situation, as it wasrepeatedly spoke out in the different South-Southconferences.

Sustainable development has to do with a proc-ess of building up bioeconomy with a negentropicproductivity of biomass and biodiversity optimisingthe capture of solar energy through the phenom-ena of photosynthesis. With this new economic,technological and cultural paradigm, humid trop-ics for example and also the countries withmegabiodiversity are not a handicap for develop-ment; on the contrary, they have a comparativeadvantage not used: their biomass productivity andthe full use of biodiversity. This is only possible ifwe enhance the ecological productivity as a partof a strategic planning of the regions.

Following the biocubeparadigm pointed out bySachs, the interaction between biodiversity,biomass and biotechnology should be the main-stream of the development of the new project. Thebasic problem is not the manipulation of genes it-self that could resolve many problems in health orin food production, but the manipulation for exclu-sive transnational interests. The use of transgenicorganisms linked to transnational interests is onemore risk for nature and the national and interna-tional food security systems. The deliberate reduc-tion of the world feeding to few varieties of seedsthat displace the cultural and indigenous seedscould have catastrophic consequences. There ishowever a new expectation in the gene manipula-tion as we learnt in India at the Swaminathan Insti-tute, where they are facing problems for the dyingof mangroves because of the worldwide phenom-ena of the salinisation of the coastal lagoons. In-troducing salt resistant genes in high productivemangroves can maybe resolve the massive starv-ing of these important trees for the tropical coastallagoon and sea productivity. But there is also avast experience of traditional knowledge in biotech-nology collected by the agroecologic2 approach,

2 Altieri Miguel. Agroecology, the science of sustainableagriculture. WestviewPress Colorado, USA. 1995

��

�# ��

like the use of vermicomposture as we observedin the Biovillages in India on soil by creating condi-tions for the biochemical transformation and pro-moting an invaluable ecological service as improv-ing ecological productiveness for production of foodand biomass, and the cleaning by biodegradationof polluted soils and water etc. Also the use andselection of cultural seeds or agriculturalbiodiversity that are environmentally friendly andculturally acceptable could be considered “soft bio-technology” in the historical long run, without thegreat risks of the “hard biotechnology”3 with thecontrol of crops by multinational enterprises.Composting, fermenting, enhancing the produc-tiveness of local seeds for complex agroforesteryare some lessons we can learn from the soft bio-technology of the indigenous knowledge. Thisbrings us immediately to the discussion of theecorights of the indigenous population. It shouldbe contracts between communities and the largersociety on the ecorights, germoplasma rights, en-vironmental services rights, like carbon capture andwater catching. In this sense, the indigenous rightsdiscussion was very acute in the Swaminathan In-stitute when some chemical components of neemtree where patented by North-American compa-nies. On the other side, I was very surprised tohear about agreements between the communitiesand the high tech swaminathan institution for thenatural or cultural germoplasm custody. The sci-ence concept of this institute is for me a model onhow hightech research could be related to grass-roots problems of the rural communities.

We know little about the efficiency of biospherereserves as an instrument to experiment a newbiomass based paradigm or ecodevelopment insome three hundred biosphere reserves that havebeen constituted in the southern and tropical partof the hemisphere. I think that it will be an interest-ing exercise to bring together the different experi-ences under the general issue: Biosphere Re-serves and ecodevelopment.

Finally I want to transmit you some lessons learntfrom the Calakmul experience so we can have aplatform from where we can extract the followingitems:

The Biosphere Reserves are somehow a common:“A national common”. Supposedly, this “common”is managed by government and not by local peo-ple. This gives us a programmed conflict betweenthe surrounding communities and the reserves. Tomanage these conflicts it is necessary to build upinstitutions with a conflict resolving scheme. In thelocal participation scheme of Calakmul, we couldbuild up a reserve council with the participation ofthe different governmental agencies (federal, stateand local level), academic organisations, NGO’s,but mainly the local community representatives.These councils are an instrument to build up theconsensus around the Biosphere Reserves, mainlyif they are accompanied with sustainable develop-ment programmes.

We learnt that the reserves should not be islandsof extinction or natural zoos or biodiversity muse-ums or gene reservoirs for the transnational cor-porations. Consequently, in the South-South pro-gramme, we discussed that the reserves shouldbe the pre-to build up the regional ecodevelopment.But, taking into account that the first point of re-gional disruption or depletion are the different gov-ernmental institutions or private interests, includ-ing the heads of the rural communities, we tried toorganise a Regional Taskforce where we couldalign the different governmental, private and othersocial actors to a regional ecodevelopment ap-proach. For us this meant in a few words:

· Creating local capacities for agroecology withthe method from peasant to peasant learnt fromother experiences from Mexico and CentralAmerica.

· It means also to develop a concept of territorialforest sustainability and ecological land useplanning of the community land: so the com-munities chose well delimited permanent for-est areas, private forested areas for beekeep-ing, enrichment of secondary forest areas forpermanent agriculture, for animal husbandryand family orchards.

· Communal forestry of the natural forest, cre-ation of Forests Permanent areas with a sus-tainable management plan. Including latex, allspices, and wild fauna management. Relatedwith this issue we discussed in Belem, Brazil,the question of the commons and the econom-ics of common actions. What Hardin4 with his

3 The latest invention of the transnational Monsantos bio-technology is the “terminator seed” that inhibits the repro-duction capacity of the plant. Is there a possibility thatthis “new” gens spread out to other crops or naturalgermoplasm? 4 The tragedy of the commons ...

��

��

“tragedy of the commons” didn’t know, or didn’twant to know, was that many resources havebeen managed successfully for more than thou-sand years. But it is also clear the commonsare in tension between the long distance mar-ket interests and the local production. Also thenew-liberal agrarian legislation does not see thecommons as a private access of co-operativelocal organisations. The open access shouldbe delimited by communal agreements for sus-tainable use after a participatory ecological andterritorial land use planning with its stakehold-ers. Strong social organisations have betterchances to organise their commons than theweak ones. The communal access has writtenor unwritten rules that permit, prohibit andobliged some actions, that should be revisedfacing future challenges of the local, regionaland long distance markets. The limits of thereserves and rural communities should be clear.Intern social, economical and ecological audit-ing by the communities should be part of themodern governance of the commons. The dis-cussion of the commons and the economy ofthe common action in the communities, like wediscussed, was central for me because at theregion we have more than 500 thousand hect-ares under this regime.

· Search for new markets for the multiple woodspecies and small scale industrialisation pro-cess. In fact, we came to the conclusion thatno development plan could be implemented, ifthere is not an integration to fair trade markets.For example, we are trying to certify the sound

natural forest management, with the green la-bel of the Forest Stewardship council. Thisbrings us some comparative advantages.

· Reconstructing the regional beekeeping activ-ity after what we call the africanization of bees.Incorporating new beekeepers to the activity,diversifying the production, generating areas ofpermanent areas of forest for the beekeeping.Enhancing the self organisation of beekeepersfor the commercialisation in the fair trade sys-tems. Also integrating women to the honey pro-duction was related with the gender discussion.

· Enrichment of the secondary forest with localcommercial species like mahogany.

· Intensive cattle raising with local forages.· Sedentary agriculture protecting cultural seeds

with low external inputs: green and animal ma-nure, water catching systems, conservation andimprovement of especially fragile soils, integralhandling of pests (after my visit to India, webrought into the region 10,000 neem trees andwe are trying to use it for pest control). Integra-tion of the agriculture with animal husbandry.

· Generating circuits of visits to the archaeologi-cal places and ecotourism in order to benefitthe rural communities.

· Development of the family orchards as a privi-leged space for environmental education.

· Women Organisation around productive inte-grated and sustainable projects.

· Basic research on the biodiversity and their lo-cal use in order to benefit the community.

��

��

“This programme aims at testing instruments forSouth-South Co-operation in the Humid Tropicswith special emphasis on network building, tech-nology transfer and improvement of managementknow-how for biosphere reserves.”

“The Programme is helping to identify the meansto strengthen institutionally local capabilities for re-search, training and management of sustainableuse of renewable resources and to recommendpossible actions in this field. Furthermore, it im-proves the exchange of information, research re-sults and scientists, particularly with respect to thepreservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Italso disseminates knowledge of comparative re-search through publications or/and networkdatabases” (M. Clüsener-Godt, South-South Per-spectives review, Nr. 5, October 1998).

I think, this is one of the best definitions of the ob-jectives of South-South Programme, I don’t findbetter expression!, but in addition it’s possible toaccount an important number of useful results:several meetings and workshops, a series of ap-plied research projects, a number of specializedpublications, and also, with UNESCO-MAB net byINTERNET:

But sure!, a first class characteristic of this Pro-gramme is, justly, its action in the south hemispherespecially in underdeveloped countries.

Nowadays, our planet suffers very complicate situ-ations, from ecological and social-political points

The influence of South-South Co-operation Programmein sustainable development of humid tropics: a case study in Cuba

byMaría HERRERA Alvarez

(President of the Cuban MAB Committee)

of view. For that, all efforts in the sense of “stop-ping” this suicide running are welcome. It’s neces-sary to do more in order to save the humanity, bet-ter, to save the life in the Earth Planet.

If all the Programmes of UNESCO and all govern-mental and no governmental organisations workedtogether in that sense, their contribution to peaceand more equitative and rational distribution ofriches will be great and perhaps decisive!

These eight years of South-South Co-operation inthe Humid Tropics Programme work are clearlypositive, I wish for it long life and permanent suc-cess in benefit of well-being in our big home: theEarth Planet.

A case study: “rehabilitation of degraded man-grove areas in Cuba”

This is a South-South project since 1997. Surely,it’s known that those ecosystems are not justly ap-preciated, but they are very important because oftheir influence in the conservation of terrestrial andmarine biodiversity, also in the coast outlines andin the prevention of soils acidity and soils erosionof the ecosystems after ecotone zones. All this istrue but much more if we talk about an archipelagoin Cuba. For that, I think that the results of thisproject are being very interesting because not onlydo we know about the reconstruction of degradedmangroves but more than that, it was the impulsefor the consolidation of a specialized group of ex-perts able to work with mangrove ecosystems, in

��

��

that sense it was very fortunate the celebration ofa national workshop about Cuban mangroves inMay 1997, with the sponsoring of South-SouthProgramme. In that occasion it was possible tomeet together the majority of institutions and spe-cialists that work in relation with the mentionedecosystems.

Up to now, one of the most important results ofthis South-South project in Cuba, is the charac-terization of a healthy Cuban mangrove ecosys-tem, with the determination of fundamental param-eters like fenology, biomass, bioclimatic data andother biophysics aspects. This model constitutesa scientific instrument that permits more seriousdiagnostics of affected mangroves, and I believeit’s possible to use it for comparing mangrove eco-systems in other similar regions.

On the other hand, as a product of expeditions,the specialists discover several new areas withaffected mangroves, and now they are working inthe detection of the degradation’s origin, in orderto make appropriate recommendations for the re-habilitation of those areas.

At last, the head of the project is writing a paperwith an analytical summary of the experiences andwith the consequent methods of mangrove reha-bilitation in humid tropics.

Certainly, South-South Co-operation in the HumidTropics Programme of UNESCO will be, or better,is already a great support for the progress of man-grove studies in our countries, surely extensive toother similar regions.

South-South Co-operation Programme, main re-search gaps:

· Participation of human communities in projectsof sustainable development, in particular thosethat live within a Biosphere Reserve.

· Methods to reproduce flora and fauna speciesin danger of extinction (for example: by organsor tissues culture, by clonifications, etc., maybeby means of Zoos and Botanical Gardens).

· Specific methods for reconstruction of de-graded ecosystems

· Contribution to the regulation and implemen-tation of juridical environmental aspects withnational and international character.

· Strategies for Environmental Education, es-pecially in communities of the Biosphere Re-serves International Net.

· Rescue of traditional agricultural techniques,use of urban and periurban agriculture like andemergency solution for cheap food production.Use of gardens, yards and abandoned landsin urban areas.

· At the end I’d like to recognize the effectivework of Drs. Clüsener-Godt and Sachs whoare the soul of this Programme.

��

��

Introduction

This paper discusses the role of the public andprivate science and technology system1 , aimingto define sustainable development strategies forprotected areas of the state of Alagoas, NortheastBrazil, following the lessons of the South-SouthCo-operation Programme of UNESCO. The ob-jective is to point out to the challenges of exploringbiodiversity and cultural diversity, learning to man-age technological pluralism in order to create pro-ductive occupation and job opportunities wherepoor social and economic indicators go hand inhand with severe environmental degradation.

Accessing information on the already accumulatedknow-how of the network of biosphere reserves ofthe Man and Biosphere Programme of UNESCO,and exploring the full potential of a modernbiomass-based civilisation as discussed by Sachs(1997) is considered here as the key element ofthis approach.

Protected areas as open laboratories for science and technologyin the state of Alagoas (Brazil):

lessons from the South-South Co-operation Programme

byVinicius Nobre LAGES*

(Department of Geography and Environment, Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil)

Alagoas at a glance

The state of Alagoas, located in Northeastern Bra-zil, is almost 29 thousand square kilometres, com-prising 0.32% of the Brazilian territory. It is dividedin 102 municipalities and has a population of 2.8million people. Being the second smallest state inBrazil after the neighbouring state of Sergipe, thepopulation density of 90 inhabitants by each squarekilometres is high compared to Brazilian stand-ards2 .

Alagoas bordered by the Atlantic Ocean, has acoastline of 230 kilometres long. The actual nameof the state comes from its complex system ofcoastal lagoons and estuaries. The semi-arid zonecomprises almost 65% of its territory. The rest in-cludes the transitional zone and the coastal zone,covered by the remains of the once large AtlanticForest.

Its economy is based on sugar-cane, but the pro-duction of rice, coconuts, tobacco, fruits, cottonand cattle ranching play also an important eco-nomic role. The sugar and ethanol industry is thesecond largest nation-wide. Alagoas has the larg-est milk production in the Northeastern region.

* The author would like to thank FAPEAL –Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado deAlagoas, for funding part of this research.

1 The science and technology system is definedhere as a group of institutions working in the stateof Alagoas in the production of scientific and tech-nological knowledge.

2 The average population density in Brazil is 18 in-habitants/km². However, due to the continentalsize of the country, we may find in the Amazonregion a population density as low as 2 people/km².

��

��

The tertiary activities are also important both interms of job opportunities and revenue. Tourism isone of the most important economic activities dueto the beauty of the beaches and the coastal estu-ary-lagoon ecosystems. The climate also helps,since the sun shines 300 days a year.

Legally protected areas in the state of Alagoas3

In the sate of Alagoas, legally protected areas aredistributed among its geographic regions, includ-ing a good representation of most natural ecosys-tems. Under federal jurisdiction we find one bio-logical reserve, two APAs (Area of EnvironmentalProtection), one Ecological Station and one Areaof Permanent Preservation. Under the state juris-diction, we have five Areas of Environmental Pro-tection and two Ecological Reserves (see Annex1).

The state also has in its territory, two municipalparks, three private natural reserves (RPPN), andone Area of Relevant Ecological Interest desig-nated by the CONAMA4 . One must also considerthe fact that the state has areas of special protec-tion under federal jurisdiction such as the six In-dian Reserves and one national monument (Serrada Barriga; a memorial to the slavery liberationmovement led by Zumbi dos Palmares).

The production of knowledge and the role ofscience and technology

The environmental crisis we face today is so deepthat we shouldn’t only be searching for its causesin the destruction of life supporting systems butalso in the unbalanced equilibrium between poli-tics, economy, society and culture.

Thinking about sustainable development impliesconsidering the need to recover the capacity torecuperate degraded and protect valuable ecosys-tems, while creating opportunities to improve so-

cial and economic conditions of the most needy.Science and technology, though not sufficient, playa necessary role in achieving such goals (Stiglitz,1998; Ferreira, 1997; Goldemberg, 1998; Sachs,1998).

Brazil produces only 0.8% of the scientific knowl-edge on a world scale. It means that only 0.8% ofall scientific papers internationally published areauthored by Brazilian scientists5 .

The state of Alagoas is far behind other leadingBrazilian states in terms of scientific development.The science and technology system of Alagoas iscomprised of very few institutions. The state hasonly 190 Ph.D. holders, and approximately 400Masters of Sciences, the majority of these indi-viduals working for the Federal University ofAlagoas6 .

For decades the Federal University of Alagoas,responsible alone for almost the totality of scien-tific research in the state of Alagoas, has not es-tablished fruitful ways of properly identifying thedemands for knowledge coming either from theprivate sector, nor the non-government organisa-tions, local communities or the public sector itself.

Therefore, most of the problems faced by envi-ronmental managers and those living in legally pro-tected areas, both in terms of technology andmanagerial processes, do not become research-able problems in the science and technology sys-tem at the state level.

The lack of formal links between the local com-munities, environmental managers and scientistsis a common occurrence in Alagoas. Althoughexclusively funded by the federal government, theuniversity is by no means socially accountable7 ,neither transparent, producing under-graduate andgraduated professionals every year and develop-ing research projects which are not firmly linked tothe real problems faced by the local society.

3 Data cited here comes from a recent publicationwritten by AUTO (1999) on the protected areas ofAlagoas.

4 National Environmental Protection Council

5 See Folha de São Paulo, 26 April 1998, 3; p.56 Of this total, 162 Ph.D. and 351 Masters of Sci-

ence degree holders work for the Federal Univer-sity of Alagoas.

7 Due to the lack of social accountability. No con-sistent effort has been made so far in terms ofshowing to society the efficiency of its teachingand research programmes.

��

�! ��

On one hand, due to the tremendous changes inthe labour market following globalisation and struc-tural adjustments measures, holding a universitydiploma is no longer assurance of job opportuni-ties. On the other hand, developing researchprojects which are not socially accountable leavesroom for research, which has little effect on peo-ple’s lives. This means that traditional forms of le-gitimacy of the university system are no longeracceptable.

The changes occurring at the national level bothin terms of economic reforms and the so calledreform of the State, create demands for more effi-ciency in all public funded sectors including fed-eral universities. In response to this a researchproject has been developed to survey the existingpotential for scientific and technological researchat the state level.

Research framework

• The co-operation activities developed by theuniversity needed to be redressed, focusingon the areas of great potential (good labora-tory infrastructure, trained personnel, leadingresearch groups, scientific expertise) as wellas those in need of improvements (thereforewilling to establish partnership with nationaland foreign institutions in order to improve itsgeneral conditions);

• The need to up-date the Directory of Scienceand Technology of the state of Alagoas, pro-ducing a computer-based data system, ca-pable of attending the needs and demandsof the new institutional environment, espe-cially regarding the liaison between the pri-vate, public and non-government organisa-tions;

• The current socio-economic structure de-mands the construction of a society basedon citizenship, conscious of the role of scien-tific and technological development as an in-strument to improve its competitiveness in theglobal economy;

• The need to regain legitimacy by the publicsector, acknowledging the fact that the Statestill has a role to play in bringing together thesynergistic forces of society in the directionof sustainable development;

• The need to democratise access to relevantinformation, particularly those related to sci-entific and technological developments, im-proving its social accountability through trans-parent actions, creating proper instrumentsand processes to evaluate research pro-grammes funded with public money.

After six months of field research the results werefed into a computer data-base, where it can nowserve as an indicator of the state capacity in termof scientific and technological development. A to-tal of 152 institutions and 1819 specialists wereregistered, including not only universities (federal,state and private) and research institutions, butresearch laboratories of the private sector as well.

What is for the future?

• Mapping the research demands of legallyprotected areas:

As expressed above, the objective of this researchwas to make available the scientific and techno-logical potential existing in the state of Alagoas, inorder to bridge the gap between research demandsof legally protected areas.

The proposed follow up of the research is to inte-grate these demands into the science and techno-logical system of the state while transforming theminto researchable projects. Establishing a scienceand technology network of key institutions com-mitted to this goal is a further step. The regionalMaster of Science Programme, PRODEMA8 , islikely to be the key element of a such strategy im-plementing jointly comparative research relatedwith ecodevelopment of the humid tropics.

An innovation system can be set up to undertakethe challenge of protecting the environment andopen opportunities for sustainable developmentstrategies. The lessons from the South-South Co-operation Programme of UNESCO, especiallythose regarding patterns of representation, access,

8 Post-Graduate Programme on Development andEnvironment, which involves 7 universities fromNortheast Brazil.

��

��

appropriation, uses and management of resourcesin protected areas are plentiful of good examples.They shouldn’t be taken as models but as chal-lenging and inspirational sources for the analysisof our one case as proposed in the comparativeapproach of the Programme.

• Strengthening of a network:

The main characteristic of the paradigmaticchanges in scientific and technological develop-ment today is the trend in networking as expressedby Castells (1996). Underlining the logic of thesechanges, the emerging paradigms is shaping thenetwork-society, the State-network, the organisa-tion-network, the enterprise, etc. Even power isbeing organised under this logic.

A network is a group of interconnected links; a linkis a point of the network which realises the inter-change of goods, services, energy between thedifferent members of the network, sharing its val-ues, rules and central objectives. There is no bet-ter way to keep the members of the South-SouthCo-operation Programme together, than network-ing.

The optimal performance of a network dependson two fundamental aspects: (i) connectivity - orthe structural capacity of the network to facilitatecommunication free of obstacles between its mem-bers; and (ii) consistency – or the compatibilitybetween the general objectives of the network andthe specific objectives of its members and institu-tions9 .

A network is an open configuration where the di-versity of its heterogeneous components can ac-tually be structured to interact and be coherentbetween each other, without destroying the indi-vidual logic and the identity of the network.

A set of guiding principles has been establishedsince the Manaus Conference in 1992; its now timefor each member to strength the links already es-tablished.

Networking at the regional, national or internationallevel means that information must flow quickly,demanding appropriate information technology ofall participants. UNESCO can play an importantrole in that respect by hosting a specific homepage– with links, chat lists, virtual library, photo-library,video-library, as well as keeping an electronic news-letter with the results of compared research pro-grammes on sustainable development in the hu-mid tropics.

Bibliography

Auto, P. 1998. Unidades de Conservação deAlagoas. Maceió. Edições IBAMA.

Ferreira, S. Ciência e DesenvolvimentoSustentável. Jornal da Ciência. Ano XXI, n.362. pp.9

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Soci-ety. The Information Age: economy, societyand culture. Vol III. Malden, Massachusetts:Blackwell Pubs.

Goldemberg, J. Qual o papel da ciência nos paísesem desenvolvimento? Jornal da Ciência. AnoXII. N. 385. pp.6

Sachs, I. 1997. Wise use of Nature for a GoodSociety. Lecture at The Third Conference onSouth-South Co-operation – Multiple Re-source and Land Use Planning in BiosphereReserves and Similar managed Areas asSubject for Ecodevelopment. Kumming Cityand Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve,China, 8-14 December, 1997.

_____________. 1998. Sciences, techniques etdéveloppement: les enjeux pour le Brésil.unprinted paper.

Stiglitz, J. 1998. Knowledge for Development: Eco-nomic Science, Economic Policy and Eco-nomic Advice. Address to the World Bank’s10th Annual Bank Conference on Develop-ment Economics. Washington, D.C. April 20,1998.

9 See CASTELLS (op.cit.)

��

��

��

�

�"

��

��

��

��

��

ANNEX 1- LIST OF LEGALLY PROTECTED AREAS IN THE STATE OF ALAGOAS

Name and status Location Area Ecosystems Year ofcreation

Biological Reserve of Pedra Talhada Quebrangulo 4,469 ha Atlantic Forest 1989

Area of Environmental Protection of Piaçabuçu Piaçabuçu 8,600 ha Coastal dunes; sea turtles laying sites;migratory birds resting sites 1983

Ecological Station of Peba Piaçabuçu 2,780 ha Mouth of the San Francisco River;mobile sand-dune systems 1981

Area of Permanent Preservation Maceió 55.43 ha Atlantic Forest 1954

Area of Environmental Protection of Santa Rita Marechal Deodoro, 10,230 ha Mangrove swamps, Atlantic Forest,Maceió, sand dune systems, estuaries, canals, lagoons,Coqueiro Seco lagoon islands 1984

Area of Environmental Protection 9 municipalities in 413,563 ha Coral reefs, estuaries, mangrove swamps,of Coastal Coral Reefs the state of Alagoas coastal vegetation, “peixe-boi” –

and 4 in the state (Trichecus manatus) nesting sites 1997of Pernambuco

Area of Environmental Protection Penedo, 8,600 ha Marshlands, swamplands, aquatic ecosystems 1988of Marituba do Peixe Feliz Deserto,

Piaçabuçu

Area of Environmental Protection of Catolé Maceió and Satuba 5,415 ha Atlantic Forest, water sources 1992and Fernão Velho

Ecological Reserve of Roteiro Barra de 742 ha Mangrove swamps and lagoon ecosystems 1987São Miguel e Roteiro

Area of Environmental Protection of Pratagy Maceió 13,369.5 ha Atlantic Forest, water sources 1998

Municipal Park of Maceió Maceió 82.44 ha Atlantic Forest 1978

Ecological Reserve of Saco da Pedra Marechal Deodoro 5 ha Sand dunes and coastal vegetation 1985

Municipal Park of Paripueira Paripueira 3,200 ha Peixe-boi nesting sites; coral reefs, 1993coastal vegetation

Area of Environmental Protection of Murici Murici 116,100 ha Atlantic Forest 1997

��

��

Introduction

The positive contributions of the South-South Co-operation Programme on Environmentally SoundSocio-Economic Development in the Humid Trop-ics since 1992 has been regularly diffused andassessed mainly through UNESCO’s newsletterSouth-South Perspectives, Working Papers seriesand UNESCO-MAB series. More specifically, af-ter UNCED 1992 the literature related to the focalpoint in the Programme´s agenda - natural renew-able resources management andecodevelopment in the context of BiosphereReserves – has increased in intensity, cogencyand depth (Aragon and Clüsener-Godt, 1997;Clüsener-Godt and Sachs, 1995; Weber, 1994,1996; Babin et al., 1999; Ostrom, 1994; Kothari etal., 1995; Gadgil and Berkes, 1991; Gadgil, 1993;Gadgil and Guha, 1995; Gadgil, 1999; Diegues,1994).

The gradual evolution of interdisciplinary ap-proaches to deal with conflicts relating traditionalcommunities and different modalities of techno-cratic management of natural renewable resourcesin these areas seem to confirm the hypothesis thatimprovement in the entitlements of populationsinhabiting them could be the proper way to protectbio- and socio-diversity in the long run. Indeed,comparative, cross-cultural research focusing pi-lot-projects to create and consolidate decentral-ized, community-based management of renewableresources constitutes a decisive move towardsviable proactive versions of environmental policy.

South-South Co-operation Programme: What now?

byPaulo Freire VIEIRA

(Post-Graduate Programme on Political Sociology/Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil)

In this context, social-environmental degradationis often related to an inadequate “assignment” ofproperty rights to common resources such as,for instance, natural forests, wildlife, water and fish-ing resources, soil, range-land and associatedpastoral production, and, of course, biodiversity(Vieira and Weber, 1997).

On of the central entry points in this debate relatesto a broad concept of tenure, denoting the termsand conditions upon which land and other naturalrenewable resources are effectively held and use.A growing body of empirical evidence shows thatcollective actions oriented to management of com-mon resources clearly defies the deep assump-tions and usual analytical procedures of main-stream economic paradigms. As suggested byWeber and Bailly (1997), Western thought tradi-tions are impregnated with the perception that pri-vate property might be the only possible option fordealing with the conflicts involving access and useof the commons. Unable to cope with resourcesthat not belong to anyone in particular or whichcross the property, these traditions tend tostrengthen those approaches that emphasis thevirtues of both privatization and statization.

Among the critical points of view considering thepertinence of these dominant paradigms, the so-called “patrimonial approach” postulates that theconflicts of interests caused by the involvement ofa large number of social actors, expressing multi-ple perceptions and interests, might be in princi-ple negotiated on the basis of a shared interest for

��

# ��

intergenerational quality of natural resource baseand habitats. Even if the notion of patrimony caninduce a cautious attitude among social scientistsattached to the empirical tradition, this alternativeapproach emphasizes the notion of a heritage tobe transmitted in the long run, of a common goodto be managed with prudence regarding presentand future generations. Hence, it tends to makeus more sensitive to the risks involved in certainoptions that could produce irreversible environmen-tal damage in the long run.

The essential core of this new line of thought con-cerns the overcoming of the dominant approachbased on “internalization of externalities” througha more encompassing, cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary theoretical framework. To understandthe commons as a certain kind of developmentinstitution, we should try (transcending the ambiva-lent discourse about “participation” in the projectsimposed to the communities) to set the focus ofintervention on the condition leading to interculturallearning about how to develop creative problemsolving skills and techniques of patrimonial me-diation (Weber, 1996). Aiming to empower peo-ple to better tackle social-ecological imbalancesat local level through common property regimes,a historical comparative understanding of under-lying causes of conflict could improve selection andrefinement of the appropriate management meth-ods to be used inventively in specific social-eco-logical contexts.

This negotiation-based prospect requires setting-up, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms as wellas the training of community members in thepatrimonial démarche, so that they can progres-sively take in charge the design of their own re-source management regimes at the local level. Butthe first step should be the building of an initialagreement concerning long term goals to be at-tained, something related more to ethical prefer-ences and institutional creativity than to economiccalculations. From this point of view, instead ofdelivering from the beginning technical guidelinesto decision-making, the challenge to be faced bythe research team is mainly to support (1) the co-ordination of a plurality of actors involved in thebuilding of new institutional arrangements at thelocal level and (2) the realization of viability stud-ies for the development strategies compatible withthe long term scenarios chosen autonomously bythe community members themselves (Weber etal., 1996; Vieira and Weber, 1997).

It appears therefore that these exists a new chal-lenge regarding the design of new educationalstrategies focusing on these issues and aimed atproviding the communities with the capacity ofusing this approach to address conflicts related toman-environment interactions in line with theAgenda 21.

Where do we stand?

In my opinion we can identify in the evolution proc-ess of the South-South Co-operation Programmemany signs of willingness to tackle this complexchallenge in a consistent way. This means aboveall the search for consolidation and expansion ofnational and regional capabilities to generate andorganize data and knowledge bases relatingecodevelopment concept; for tentative incorpora-tion of the results in community-based systems;and for critical assessment, monitoring and socialdiffusion of pertinent scientific information.

At the same time, it would be important to insistthat the South-South Co-operation Programme’sagenda focus on natural resources conservationthrough ecodevelopment. The rather controver-sial concept of ecodevelopment is used in thispaper to denote a knowledge-intensive, simulta-neously preventive and pro-active kind of environ-mental policy. It is concerned basically (1) with theassessment of underlying structural conditions giv-ing rise to imbalances in man-environmental rela-tions and (2) with the design of long term innova-tive “win-win” strategies of social changes. Givinga new and vigorous impulse to the search of non-mimetic and non-reductionist development strate-gies for the South is perceived by his followers asa possible starting point for an encompassing so-cial response to a crisis of civilization.

Complex systems design is the central concern ofthis operational or “problem-solving” concept,where emphasis is placed on the need to modifythe planner’s field of vision in order to tackleintegratively into account such diversified issuesas new consumption patterns an production sys-tems, changing life-stiles, value changes, equityand “governance”. Both decentralization and “cen-tralized synthesis” are considered complementaryinstances in establishing an effective institutionalapparatus for future-oriented decisions: the formerreinforces the utopia of rationalized co-manage-ment of society, and the latter provides the capa-

��

��

bilities for coping with widespreadinterdependencies, uncertainties and long termsystemic effects (Sachs, 1980, 1981, 1993, 1994;Glaeser, 1984; Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation,1975).

Historically, we live in a period of growing uncer-tainties concerning both our understanding of de-velopment-environment issues and our ap-proaches to dealing with realistic alternatives todominant “react-and-cure” strategies and instru-ments. Against the background of the tragic con-straints imposed nowadays by the economic andcultural globalization trends upon the conditionsof the poor and marginalized sectors of contem-porary societies (in both hemispheres), the South-South Co-operation Programme can provide in-formation, educational strategies a networkingspace to counteract the structural violence implicitin the logic of the operation of the “new world(dis)order”. It can thus respond both to the short-and medium- term needs of the decision-makers(including institutions and individuals), as well asto undertake research that can be rigorous andchallenging, inducing at the same time attitudesand creative responses oriented to the construc-tion of a culture of non-violence in a developmentperspective (UNESCO, 1996). In this sense, itseems to me an ethical imperative not only to sup-port achievements attained to now, but also tosimulate the debate focusing on new priorities forthe years to come.

New strategies guidelines?

In spite of the pertinence and legitimacy (1) of theCo-operation Programme’s starting point, empha-sizing the rain tropics as a biogeographic regionfor the exchange of experiences in designing sus-tainable livelihoods and development paths in-formed by the Agenda 21; and (2) of the choice ofbiosphere reserves as a sort of dominant point ofentry or “laboratory” for cross-cultural, action-ori-ented research, two main shortcomings are worthmentioning here.

1) First, and most important, the restrictive focusthat has been set in the dynamics of the rain trop-ics. It seems important to consider the possibilityof expanding the Programme’s scope to take se-lectively into account other bio-geographical re-gions charged with even more dramatic expres-sions of socio-ecological imbalances and risks. For

instance, considering the Brazilian context, coastalenvironments that includes the remnants of theAtlantic Forest. In this bio-geographic region threat-ened by process of intensive urban and industrialoccupation (14 metropolitan zones, absorbingmore than the half of our total population) andhighly destructive modalities of natural resource’sappropriation and use, the role of local level con-trol mechanisms through traditional managementand custom has been correspondingly eroded.

The efforts to tackle the challenge of integrated,proactive coastal management can make use of awide range of experiments in the field of commu-nity-based resource management systems in sev-eral regions of the world. The Biosphere Reserveof Atlantic Forest can provide logistic support forselected experiments, especially in the Southeastand the South regions. A substantial part of theresearch effort can be concentrated on the pros-pect of integrated production systems includingagro-forestry, aquaculture and small-scale, decen-tralized industrialization based on a comprehen-sive use of terrestrial and aquatic biomass as food,fuel, fertilizer and food processing and non-foodagro-industries. Recent advances in domestic bio-technology research offer a promising point for thedesign of development alternatives (Sachs, 1993,1994; Vieira et al., 1998).

At the same token, innovative moves towards theestablishing of sound systems of detailed local levelassessments of diversity resources and their uses,in tune with objectives of the Convention on Bio-logical Biodiversity, can be found nowadays in theprogramme advanced under the rubric People’sBiodiversity Registers (Gadgil, 1999; Gadgil et al.,1999).

In 52 villages clusters distributed in 9 differentstates of India, these registers have been preparedby teams of local college teachers and students,or of workers of NGOs interacting with the localpeople to document (a) their biophysical and so-cial setting, (b) their understanding of biodiversityin their own localities, (c) the history of their land-scape and its living resources, (d) the current pat-terns of utilization of the landscape and the livingresources, and the various actors moulding suchpatterns of utilization, (e) who benefits and wholoses from the current patterns of transformationof the landscape and utilization of living resources,(f) their developmental aspirations contrasted with

��

� ��

the possible human-ecological outcomes, (g) thelocal people’s prescriptions on how they would liketo organize local management systems for con-servation and sustainable use of living resources,(h) how these prescriptions relate to conflictingaspirations of different segments of local commu-nities, and finally (i) how the consensus attainedat the local level relates to management patternsdesired by actors from the larger society, in par-ticular the governmental agencies and entrepre-neurs.

In Gadgil’s more recent proposal of Involving Peo-ple in Millenium Assessment of the State of theWorld’s Ecosystems, relating case studies to bedeveloped in selected countries (for the moment,India, Brazil, South Africa, Canada and Sweden)we can find the additional objective related to “pro-moting institutions that would assess ecosystemsat the local level and translate this assessment intothe appropriate action in an adaptive fashion”. Newmechanisms for using the possible outcomes ofthis research effort could be created as new in-puts for a decentralized process of developmentplanning at the community and district levels.

An alternative way to express this new point of entryfor concerted, systematic, comparative researchcould be comparative, policy-oriented analysis ofthe history and current status of community-basedconservation. The project components includes (a)national and regional ecological history, focusingon social thought and action relating to the con-servation of species and ecosystems; (b) currentstatus of community-based conservation, includ-ing an assessment of the people’s initiatives andof the potential for community involvement in con-servation, envisaged in laws, policies and govern-ment programmes; (c) detailed analysis of spe-cific sites (biosphere reserves or other protectedareas) in different countries, with cross-countrycomparative analysis; and (d) lessons to be learntregarding methods and desirability of community-based conservation. Special focus could be seton the relevance of historical analysis to the un-derstanding and handling of contemporary conser-vation dilemmas and the value of cross-culturalanalysis.

2) Second, the up today limited experience ofthe South-South Programme to foster inter-in-stitutional co-ordination, assessment andmonitoring mechanisms for experimental hu-

man-ecological research and training at theinternational level. New institutions arrangementsare urgently needed, in order to make joint re-search programmes focusing on common prop-erty resource management as part ofecodevelopment strategies socially more visible,operationally more effective and politically morelegitimate. From the operational perspective, itseems crucial to strengthen at the same time (1)the mediation role of the South-South Programmein the search for adequate funding for teaching,research and institutional capacity-building pro-grammes; (2) the search for adequate operationalco-ordination among strategic policy-makingspaces (scientific-technological, educational, ag-ricultural and industrial); and (3) the intensive useof informatics both to counteract the growing com-plexity involved in the linking of new research com-munities and the implementation of more ambi-tious educational projects in tune with the Agenda21.

The ideals consubstantiated in the South-SouthCo-operation Programme constitute a formidablechallenge that seems to depend directly on theexistence of inducing, co-ordinating and evaluat-ing, mechanisms, simultaneously at four level ofintegration: (1) the university level; (2) the inter-university, regional level; (3) the scientific-techno-logical system at the national level, and (4) the in-ternational level. The prospect of creating andgradually consolidating this web of teaching andpolicy-oriented research webs to fosterecodevelopment strategies (under the co-ordina-tion of the South-South Co-operation Programme)could offer a promising starting point for tacklingour challenges in the long run.

Concerning the Brazilian experience, the slow de-velopment pace of the Association for Training andResearch in Ecology and Development (APED)makes clear the impressive obstacles to bematched concerning some constraints, absenceof political will and the weight of the culture of “aca-demic individualism”. At the same time, in our coun-try the integrative outcomes expected on the ba-sis of the UNESCO Chairs for Sustainable Devel-opment seems to be rather frustrating. In a recentpaper (Vieira, 1998) I have argued that it seemsdifficult to accept the view that the task of con-fronting long term and large-scale trends associ-ated with environment planning and managementcould be claimed and performed by a sort of

��

��

“atheoretical” and ad hoc pattern of applied envi-ronmental science, either by neglecting the use ofupdated results of basic research or by producingresults that do not lead either to an encompassingsolid theoretical understanding of man-environ-ment interactions, or to its permanent conversioninto policy-relevant issues.

Thus it would be important, considering future op-tions for managing the South-South Co-operationProgramme, to take into account the need to mo-bilize efforts to adequately assess the evolution ofthe theoretical and methodological research lev-els. Facing the complexity of our problématique,researchers and development actors using theecodevelopment approach must be able to figureout, with growing analytical precision, which avail-able building blocks of social organisation canmake up more adequate institutional arrangementsand culturally sound action strategies for chang-ing given circumstances in long term run. In myopinion, it is a clear and detailed specification ofpriorities concerning the interplay between basicand applied research and training capabilities, in-stitutional and economic requirements and evalu-ation criteria for research projects and programmesthat should nurture the design of sound corre-sponding strategies. In this context, it seems le-gitimate to expect an intensified effort to createalternative educational systems coherent with theecodevelopment approach in the years to come.As a consequence, it seems unavoidable to nur-ture the building of creative linkages with selectededucational programmes sponsored by severalbranches of United Nations System.

References

Aragón, L. E.; Clüsener-Godt, M. (Eds.) 1997.Reservas de Biosfera e reservasextrativistas: conservação eecodesenvolvimento. UNAMAZ, Belém.

Babin, D. et al. 1999. Managing pluralism for sus-tainable forestry and rural development.CIRAD-GREEN, Montpellier.

Clüsener-Godt, M.; Sachs, I. (Eds.) 1995. Brazil-ian perspectives on sustainable developmentof the Amazon Region, vol. 5. UNESCO-MAB, Paris.

DAG HAMMARSKJÖLD Foundation. 1975. Whatnow? DHF, Uppsala.

Diegues, A. C. 1994. O mito moderno da naturezaintocada. NUPAUB-USP, São Paulo.

Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. 1991. Traditional resourcemanagement systems. Resource Manage-ment and Optimization. 8(1-4): 127-141.

Gadgil, M. 1993. Why we must empower peopleto conserve biodiversity. Environment Update.1: 11-15.

Gadgil, M.; Guha, R. 1995. Ecology and equity.The use and abuse of nature in contempo-rary India. Routledge, London and New York.

Gadgil, M. 1999. Conserving India’s biodiversity:let people speak. Centre for Ecological Sci-ences. Bangalore.

Gadgil, M. 1999. New meanings for old knowledge:the people’s biodiversity registers pro-gramme. Center for Ecological Sciences.Bangalore.

Glaeser, B. 1984. Ecodevelopment. Concepts,projects, strategies. Pergamon Press, Oxford(UK).

Kothari, A. et al. 1995. People and protected ar-eas. Rethinking conservation in India. TheEcologist. 25(5).

Ostrom, E. 1994. Institutional analysis, design prin-ciples and threats to sustainable communitygovernance and management of commons.In: Pomeroy, R. S. (Ed.) Community manage-ment and common property of coastal fish-eries in Asia and Pacific: concepts, methodsand experiences, p. 34-50. ICLARM, Manila.

Sachs, I. 1980. Stratégies de l’écodéveloppement.Les Editions Ouvrières, Paris.

Sachs, I. et al. 1981. Initiation àl’écodéveloppement. Privat, Toulose.

Sachs, I. 1993. Estratégias de transição para oséculo XXI. Desenvolvimento e meioambiente. Nobel-Fundap, São Paulo.

Sachs, I. 1994. Le défi de l’énvironnement, In:Salomon, J. J. et al. (Eds.) La quêteincertaine. Science, technologie,développement. Economica. Paris.

��

� ��

UNESCO. 1996. From a culture of violence to aculture of peace. UNESCO, Paris.

Vieira, P. F. et al. 1998. Uma estratégia deecodesenvolvimento para a região sul-sudeste do Brasil. Programa de pesquisasobre modos de apropriação e gestãocomunitária dos recursos naturais. In: Vieira,P. F. et al. (Eds.) Desenvolvimento e meioambiente no Brasil. A contribuição de IgnacySachs, p. 219-252, Palloti e APED, PortoAlegre e Florianópolis.

Vieira, P. F. 1998. Social sciences and environ-ment in Brazil. A state-of-art report. UNESCO,Paris.

Weber, J. 1994. Les relations entre populations etaires protegées à Madagascar. Natures, Sci-ences, Sociétés, 2.

Weber, J. 1996. Conservation, développement etcoordination. Peut-on gérer biologicament lesocial? Colloque Panafrican “Gestioncommunautaire des ressources naturellesrenouvelables et développement durable”,24-27 june 1996, Harare.

��

�� PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME

NEWSLETTER

Number 1, issued in October 1994, in 4 languages: South-South Perspectives (English), 28 pp.: Perspectives Sud-Sud (French), 28 pp.: Perspectivas Sur-Sur (Spanish), March 1995, 28 pp.: South-South Perspectives (Zhongguóhuà-Chinese), December 1995, 28 pp.

Number 2, issued in October 1995, in 4 languages: South-South Perspectives (English), 36 pp.: Perspectives Sud-Sud (French), 36 pp.: Perspectivas Sur-Sur (Spanish), 36 pp.: South-South Perspectives (Zhongguóhuà-Chi-nese), July 1996, 36 pp.

Number 3, issued in July 1996: South-South Perspectives (English), 28 pp.: Perspectives Sud-Sud (French), 28pp.: Perspectivas Sur-Sur (Spanish), 28 pp.: South-South Perspectives (Zhongguóhuà-Chinese), November1996, 28 pp.

Number 4, issued in September 1997: South-South Perspectives (English), 20 pp.: Perspectivas Sur-Sur (Span-ish), 20 pp.

Number 5, issued in October 1998: South-South Perspectives (English), 28 pp.: South-South Perspectives (Chi-nese), 28 pp.

Number 6, issued in September 1998: South-South Perspectives (English-Portuguese) 28 pp.

Nº 1 (1995):The Mata Atlântica Biosphere Reserve (Brazil):An Overview, by Antonio Carlos DIEGUES.

Nº 2 (1995): The Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve(China): A Tropical Land of Natural and Cultural Diver-sity, by WU Zhaolu, OU Xiaokun.

Nº 3 (1995): The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve (Thai-land), by Benjavan RERKASEM, Kanok RERKASEM.

Nº 4 (1995): La Réserve de la biosphère de Dimonika(Congo), par Jean DIAMOUANGANA.

Nº 5 (1995): Le Parc national de Taï (Côte d’Ivoire): unmaillon essentiel du programme de conservation de lanature, par Yaya SANGARÉ.

Nº 6 (1995): La Réserve de la biosphère de Mananara-Nord (Madagascar) 1988-1994: bilan et perspectives,par Noëline RAONDRY, Martha KLEIN, Victor SoloRAKOTONIRINA.

Nº 7 (1995): A Study on the Homegarden Ecosystem in theMekong River Delta and the Hochiminh City (VietNam),by Nguyen Thi Ngoc AN.

Nº 8 (1995): The Manu Biosphere Reserve (Peru), by LuisYALLICO, Gustavo SUAREZ DE FREITAS.

Nº 9 (1995): The Beni Biosphere Reserve (Bolivia), byCarmen MIRANDA L..

Nº 10 (1995): La Reserva de la biosfera Sierra del Rosario(Cuba), par Maria Herrera ALVAREZ, Maritza GARCIACarcia.

Nº 11 (1995): The Omo Biosphere Reserve (Nigeria), byAugustine O. ISICHEI.

Nº 12 (1995): Environnement naturel et socio-économiquede la forêt classé de la Lama (Bénin), par Marcel A.BAGLO, P. COUBEOU, B. GUEDEGBE, B. SINSIN.

Nº 13 (1995): The Calakmul Biosphere Reserve (Mexico),by Eckart BOEGE.

Nº 14 (1996): Conservation de la biodiversité aux Comores:le Parc national de Mohéli, par A. S. ALI; A. YOUSSOUF.

Nº 15 (1996): Resource-Use Patterns: The Case of Coco-nut-Based Agrosystems in the Coastal Zones of Kerala(India) and Alagoas (Brazil), by Vinicius NOBRELAGES.

Nº 16 (1996): The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: A Review ofConservation Status with Recommendations for a Ho-

WORKING PAPERS

listic Approach to Management (India), by R.J. RANJITDANIELS.

Nº 17 (1996): Kinabalu Park and the Surrounding IndigenousCommunities (Malaysia), by Jamili NAIS.

Nº 18 (1997): Puerto Galera (Philippines) : A Lost BiosphereReserve?, by M. D. FORTES.

Nº 19 (1997): The Palawan Biosphere Reserve (Philippines),by Ricardo M. SANDALO, Teodoro BALTAZAR.

Nº 20 (1997): Le Parc national de Kahuzi Biega, futureRéserve de la biosphère (République démocratique duCongo), par Bihini won wa MUSITI, Germain Mansotoma OYISENZÔO, Georg DÖRKEN.

Nº 21 (1997): Biodiversity Conservation throughEcodevelopment Planning and Implementation Les-sons from India, by Shekhar SINGH.

Nº 22 (1997): The Tanjung Puting National Park and Bio-sphere Reserve (Indonesia), by Herry Djoko SUSILO.

Nº 23 (1997): Biodiversity Conservation in Mozambique andBrazil, by Maria Teresa RUFAI MENDEZ.

Nº 24 (1998): Social Sciences and Environment in Brazil: astate-of-the-art report (Brazil), by Paulo FREIRE VIEIRA.

Nº 25 (1998): La implementación de Reservas de la Biosfera:La experiencia latinoamericana, por Cláudio DANIELE,Marcelo ACERBI y Sebastián CARENZO.

Nº 26 (1998): Preservation of Sacred Groves in Ghana:Esukawkaw Forest Reserve and its Anwean SacredGrove, by B. AMOAKO-ATTA.

Nº 27 (1998): Environmentally Sound Agricultural Develop-ment in Rural Societies: A Comparative View fromPapua New Guinea and South China, by R. OHTSUKA,T. ABE, M. UMEZAKI.

Nº 28 (1999): Reunión inernacional para la Promoción deldesarrollo sostenible en los Países Africanos de LenguaOficial Portuguesa (PALOP) mediante la cooperacióninternacional, editado por M. T. R. PITÉ, E. MÜLLER.

Nº 29 (1999): La Reserva de la biosfera los Tuxtlas (Mexico),por S. GUEVARA SADA.

Nº 30 (1999): The Biosphere Reserve of the Sierra Nevada deSanta Marta: A Pioneer Experience of a Shared and Co-ordinated Management of a Bioregion (Colombia), byM. C. D. G. TRIBIN, G. E. RODRIGUEZ N., M.VALDERRAMA.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONPeter BRIDGEWATER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUNDSOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE HUMID TROPICS:8 YEARS OF SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION

19-23 May 1999 (Xalapa, Mexico) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

List of Participants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT. WHERE DO WE STAND?Ignacy SACHS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7

OPENING ADDRESSMohamed H. A. HASSAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

PAPERS PRESENTED ON THE CONFERENCESUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMID TROPICS:WHERE DO WE STAND - THE AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE

Boakye AMOAKO-ATTA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

RESULTS OF ACTIVITIES IN DIMONIKA BIOSPHERE RESERVE (Congo)Jean DIAMOUANGANA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

RETROSPECTIVE: LESSONS LEARNT AFTER THREE YEARSOF PARTICIPATION IN THE SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME

Maria Teresa Rufai MENDES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

ASSESSING MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESSOF WILDLIFE PROTECTED AREAS IN INDIA

Shekhar SINGH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

PROSPECTS OF THE SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMMECASE STUDY IN CHINA

ZHAO Xianying --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32

SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME FORTHE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE IN HUMID TROPICS

Luis E. ARAGON ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

LESSONS LEARNT IN THE SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMMEON ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTIN THE HUMID TROPICS

Eckart BOEGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

THE INFLUENCE OF SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMMEIN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMID TROPICS:A CASE STUDY IN CUBA

María HERRERA ALVAREZ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40

PROTECTED AREAS AS OPEN LABORATORIES FOR SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY IN THE STATE OF ALAGOAS (BRAZIL):LESSONS FROM THE SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME

Vinicius Nobre LAGES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 42

SOUTH-SOUTH CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME: WHAT NOW?Paulo Freire VIEIRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47

Documents

South-South perspectives, no. 7, 1999; South-South ...unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140255e.pdf · SOUTH-SOUTH PERSPECTIVES ... eration Programme on environmentally sound